Contra Horn: Insufficient Opposition to Jewish Zionism and its Ambitions

Responding to Trent Horn and his equivocal position on Zionism, we use theology, papal pronouncements and approved authors to demonstrate the necessity of integral Catholic opposition to the same

“The Jewish claim to Palestine is implicitly a denial that they have disobeyed God and missed their vocation by their rejection of the Supernatural Messias. It is the assertion in action that the promised Messias has not yet come and that the day of their national domination over the world will yet dawn. The final result will inevitably be another disastrous blow to their hopes. All their naturalistic attempts to impose their will on God, instead of accepting His, are, needless to say, doomed to failure, and every failure involves the Jewish nation in dire catastrophes.” - Fr. Denis Fahey

Earlier this week, the popular YouTube host and “Staff Apologist” at Catholic Answers, Trent Horn,¹ chose to cover the recent controversy brewing around Carrie Prejean Boller. Predictably, his analysis was a combination of both truth and error, mixed together with certain, key omissions.

For those of our readers that have not seen his coverage or are familiar with his general views, we encourage you to watch the following video (~17min) to which we are responding:

• Can Catholics be Zionists? — The Counsel of Trent

The title poses a clear question, and the unequivocal Catholic answer is no —Catholics cannot be Zionists. To his credit, Horn reaches the same basic conclusion. However, towards the end of his analysis, reflecting on the testimony of Ms. Bollet, he confidently says [16:10], “Prejean is wrong when she says this simply is the Catholic view and that Catholics must be or are anti-Zionist.” It is precisely this qualification, and the equivocation it introduces, that we contest. Catholic opposition to Zionism has always encompassed both its religious and political expression and, while religious Zionism is rightly regarded as heretical, the latter is a lesser error, though still not safe for Catholics to adhere to as we will work to argue. Put differently, Catholics are necessarily opposed to the religious movement of Zionism and its political - messianic expression.

Keep in mind that political Zionism² is nothing other than the idea and attendant movement to establish Jewish sovereignty and a State in the Holy Land (hereafter used interchangeably with Palestine) on, ostensibly, mostly natural grounds. However, in nearly all cases, this political expression is nevertheless imbued with religious ideas and messianic ferment. How could it not? For the vast majority of modern Jews — irrespective of whether they belong to a reformed, conservative, orthodox or ultra-orthodox sect — they believe that their race is uniquely chosen by God to bring about a messianic mission to the world, which is essentially anti-christian given that their Divine Messias and King, Jesus Christ, has already arrived.

Further, the Jews of today, having no temple, priesthood or sacrifice, have long since abandoned the strict Mosaism of their ancient ancestors, opting instead for Talmudic rationalism and revolutionary activism. Working in tandem, these two forces join to usher in a collective messianic vision, by which the Jews will rule over the (European and Christian) nations with grand political and national power, in a future, messianic age.

This is why our primary criticism of Horn is what he omits — the necessary and complete opposition to Jewish Zionism, the consequent political movement and its antichrist pretensions.

---

---

A Superficial Pivot Away From Zionism

Related to this coverage from Trent Horn is a recent phenomenon among Conservative commentators which has gone largely unnoticed. Matt Fradd, now at The Daily Wire and his new colleague, Michael Knowles, are good examples of it. Having clandestinely pivoted away from earlier tolerance of explicit or religious Zionism in the broader Conservative Movement, they are now retreating to a more tenable (superficially) position of support for political Zionism and its designs. A support that is likely motivated by financial considerations, but certainly by the disease of philosemitism. In conjunction with the aforementioned factors, after October 7th and the disproportionate Israeli response (not limited to war crimes but an incessant media blitz, as well), Jewish Zionism and its most rabid defenders have hemorrhaged credibility in the eyes of the American public. The assassination of Charle Kirk last autumn, a stalwart, pro-Israel, Judaizing protestant and effective activist has not helped, either.³

For these reasons, in order to maintain credibility among an increasing number of people, many conservatives like Knowles and Fradd have been obliged to come out merely against the excesses of Jewish Zionism and its leaders, which is importantly still distinct from the movement itself. It certainly is not robust opposition to the same. A common refrain, often volunteered by these men, goes something like “the current government of Israel is in no way the Israel of the Old Testament!” Another goes “as Catholics, we can (and should!) criticize the Netanyahu government while still avoiding legitimate antisemitism.” This tactic has been especially popular in online politics and with the core voting demographic of the Republican party: White Christian men. It seems Trent Horn was in this group for a significant part of his career, though if there is conclusive evidence to the contrary, we will hasten to exclude him. His recent video only confirms this.

One final observation: notice, importantly, that these influencers did not publicly acknowledge reasons for their having abandoned tolerance of religious Zionism in their Conservative Movement, a blatant heresy, rather that goes unmentioned. A good mind, upon receiving sufficient evidence that it is mistaken, should change its position, humbly admitting (which goes for everyone, including the present author) it got something wrong. There is no shame in that. However, the glaring omission has the effect of leaving an audience in the dark; was the man honestly mistaken or, perhaps more cynically, is it now expedient (money or credibility) to be opposed to religious Zionism? Other times, the superficial pivot away from Zionism is even more subtle; where conservatives state they are simply “not Zionist”, agnostic to the movement and its aims, while refusing to publicly and positively oppose it.

Horn[stein]’s Background

Before continuing with the analysis, we must mention one biographical detail about Mr. Horn which, if not for a regrettable pattern of public behavior, would — perhaps — not be necessary (or even appropriate) to connect to this essay. Though, strictly speaking, we only need to weigh arguments on their merits, irrespective of who is making them, in certain circumstances this rule is superseded by necessity, which we will now make clear. For anyone unfamiliar, Horn is a convert to Catholicism who has routinely obfuscated the perpetual enmity between the Catholic Church and the faithless Synagogue, appealed to Sacred Scripture to deny that Jews are the enemies of Christians and, in a characteristic moment of Chutzpah, proceeded to “correct” St. Thomas in his advice to Christian rulers, simultaneously implying he harbored “sinful attitudes.” Of course, what we are drawing attention to is the public fact that Mr. Horn is of Jewish extraction:

I am [Jewish]… half my family’s Jewish…My surname is actually Hornstein, and my grandfather changed his name after the war. He got beat up for being a Jew. So if I had kept it, I would’ve had a great law practice, Hornstein and Hornstein or something like that… (Can Libertarians be Catholic?, Interview (7.8.24) Transcript with ReasonTV).

Yes, Trent’s surname is actually “Hornstein”, that is before it was shortened to “Horn” after World War II.

In order to preempt any accusation of un-Christian antisemitism, distinct from the legitimate kind we defend and witnessed to by famous Hebrew converts, let us make clear our commitment to Catholic principles: namely, that as a matter of justice and charity, not unlike any other convert, a Jew is to be given the presumption of sincerity in his conversion and welcomed as a brother of Christ after having received baptism. That said, not unlike any other convert, presumption must give way to facts, especially when the offenses are repeated and no longer can safely be attributed to simple ignorance. It is also worth remembering, lest we be accused of an unjust prejudice, that among the greatest saints of the Church are the Holy Apostles, all of whom were of Jewish origin, to say nothing of Our Blessed Lord, St. Joseph and Our Lady.

As we have highlighted above, it is reasonable to believe that Mr. Horn is, in fact, prejudiced by his Jewish ancestry. This Jewish baggage, so-to-speak, comes from the culture, attitudes and inherited disposition he grew up with — whether he knows it or not. We urge him, as one does to a fellow Catholic, to seriously consider the spirit of Canon LVIII of the Fourth Council of Toledo, certainly applying to Hebrew converts:

In addition, for him to urgently make known that it follows from Sacred Scripture that 1) the Jews have a unique responsibility in the death of Christ, 2) that Judaism after the coming of Christ is essentially anti-Christian along with its designs and, finally, an appreciation, at minimum respectful silence, for 3) the wisdom of St. Thomas concerning how Christian rulers should deal with Jews.

All of this, while not applying uniquely to Mr. Horn, is why the Catholic Church has ever been on guard against insincere and subversive Jewish converts, encouraging vigorous assimilation.

Does Israel Have a Right to Exist?

Bubbling with danger today is the question of “does Israel have a right to exist?” In the eyes of the Synagogue and their abetters, should you answer incorrectly, pariah status, de-banking, joblessness, the abandonment of family and friends, even imprisonment (in some European countries) are seen as just consequences. In this video from Trent Horn, he poses the question, using a recent X post from Lila Rose to identify his own [12:49] position:

However, unlike what you have always heard, the question should not be immediately answered, only a simple distinction should be made: is the question referring to Israel as a “State” in the Holy Land, or as a “nation”, a non-political grouping of Jews in the same. Recall, that these two terms are formally distinct in philosophy, the latter referring to the physiological union of Jews, their having shared ancestry and a common racial identity, while the former, the “State”, refers to political sovereignty and government. Therefore, the correct way to respond is to ask for a clarification or, perhaps for a skilled interlocutor, denying that “Israel has a right to exist” which will force the equivocation.

If it is not clear already, we do affirm and all Catholics must do the same, that the Jewish nation, the Jewish people which includes their diaspora, have a right to existence and must be protected from unjust reprisals and extrajudicial violence. There are even special protections for Jews, incumbent upon us to respect in light of theology, which will be reviewed in the subsequent section. The nature of this protection is twofold, which is often forgotten today. Not only are Jews to receive protection from Catholics, but Catholics are to receive special protection from Jews and their subversive influence on society, especially when it comes to their proliferation of moral and religious error. In a previous review of Rev. Dr. Stanisław Trzeciak’s writing, we saw the concrete implications of this:

• The Great Pope Benedict XIV and the Jewish Question in Poland — Trzeciak, 1939

Let us return to the central question: Does the “State of Israel” have a right to exist? This is a legitimate inquiry when viewed through the lens of natural rights. All rights, properly understood, derive from law — whether natural or positive.⁴ A right is a moral power to acquire or hold something to which others are bound in justice to respect. The key issue, then, is how the Jewish nation in 1948 could claim a right to a territory that did not belong to them, let alone assert political sovereignty over it.

We must remember, the Jewish people lost their divine title to the land upon rejecting their Messias, as Our Lord Himself declared, “Therefore I say unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof” (Matt. 21:43). Their natural title was likewise forfeited with the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD and an ensuing exile that lasted for millennia. From that time onward, the Jews existed as a stateless people, dwelling apart from Christian nations and vigorously refusing assimilation. Yet the Zionist movement insists that Jews retain a claim to Palestine despite their practical absence from the region for nearly nineteen centuries. Under even modest scrutiny, this assertion collapses. Still worse, the Zionist occupation and domination of the Holy Land, culminating in the 1948 declaration of statehood, rested on methods contrary to justice — including terrorism, cruelty, and deception — and involved the displacement of native populations. In hindsight, the warning from Fr. Maximillian Kolbe in 1924, posed rhetorically “But you won’t fit in Palestine, I noticed, so Zionism probably has a more extensive plan?” was prescient.

Therefore, we maintain a crucial distinction: while the State of Israel exists de facto, it lacks legitimacy de jure, for its moral foundation has never been convincingly demonstrated,⁵ never mind the positive theological data that militates against it. In addition to this natural-rights critique, which we would argue could stand independently in the 20th century, reinforcement is found in theological considerations that bind the Catholic conscience, drawing their force from the Messianic Dignity of Christ and His Israel on Earth, the Roman Catholic Church.

Theodor Herzl, the father of modern Zionism, envisioned a “Judenstaat” and his ambitions were confirmed in his 1896 pamphlet with the same name, rendered as “The Jewish State” in English. He argued that the draw of Holy Land, unlike other possible locations in Argentina or Madagascar, owed to it being the “ever-memorable historic home” of the Jewish people.⁶ However, for Catholics, a Jewish state in the Holy Land is an offense against Catholic theology.

Fr. Denis Fahey, the 20th-century Irish priest whose profound works on the theology of history remain indispensable, demonstrated that the Zionist claim to Palestine implicitly denies the corporate vocation that the Jewish nation, once God’s chosen people,⁷ forfeited by rejecting their Divine Messias, Jesus Christ. In that rejection, they lost their prerogative as the people of Israel (Cf. Matt. VIII, 10; XXI, 43).⁸

As Pope St. Leo the Great taught, the chosen race⁹ is now comprised of believers from every nation. The establishment of a Jewish state in the Holy Land thus not only 1) fails the test of natural justice but 2) contradicts the divine plan revealed in Scripture and Tradition.¹⁰

Medieval Opposition to Future Jewish Claims

As stated above, certainly, the Jewish nation has a right to existence but it is always in the context of Catholic theology and proper exegesis of Sacred Scripture. Specifically, in what is termed the “Witness People” doctrine. This doctrine was originally developed by St. Augustine in the 4th century, and has been incorporated into Catholic tradition and confirmed in papal pronouncements.

What is this doctrine? The Jews, in rejecting Christ, lost their divine right (title) to the Holy Land and were rightly subjected to dispersion for their crime of Deicide, which they claimed responsibility for (Matt. XXVII, 25) and were simultaneously charged by the Apostles with. Further, the Catholic toleration of Jewish rites after the coming of Christ, which presupposes an evil to be endured for the sake of some greater good, has a clear purpose: the ceremonies and practices of the Hebrew religion signified that the Messiah was to come so, after His coming, they bear witness to the truth of the Gospel. Not only that, but embedded within the “Witness People” doctrine we see the fulfillment of Old Testament themes and typology, by which the gentiles (younger brother - Abel) have assumed the place of the Jews (older brother - Cain). Pope Innocent III, writing in the 13th century, explained the essentials of the doctrine:

Roughly one century earlier, St. Bernard of Clairvaux confirmed the Witness Doctrine, simultaneously warning Christians that “The Jews must not be persecuted, slaughtered, nor even driven out.” Importantly, the last part, “nor even driven out” should not be taken in an absolute sense, rather only as a last resort for Christian princes, Secular or Spiritual, dealing with the Jewish problem:

The Holy Doctor, St. Bernard, then continued by saying “They [the Jews] are living signs to use, representing the Lord’s passion. For this reason they are dispersed into all regions, that now they may pay the just penalty of so great a crime, and that they may be witnesses of our redemption.”

Yet, throughout the entire video from Mr. Horn, conspicuously, there is no mention of this central doctrine concerning the Jewish people and their relation to the true and unique people of God, the baptized sons of the Catholic Church. In vain did we search the video and transcript for even a single mention, or even a passing allusion. This, among other details, is one of the key omissions referenced at the beginning of the essay.

Modern Catholic Theology Equally Militates Against Zionism

Unknown to far too many Catholics, modern Catholic theology has consistently opposed Zionism and its territorial claims on Palestine, along with an attendant political project, viewing both as incompatible with the Church’s interpretation of Scripture.

In 1897, the Jesuits at La Civiltà Cattolica, whose every article secured approval from the Vatican Secretary of State and was considered a semi-official organ of the Holy See, recapitulated the position of Catholic theology, drawing from Scripture, on the perpetual statelessness of the Jews. In the article entitled The Dispersion of Israel in the Modern World, authored by Fr. Raffaele Ballerini, we find:

According to the sacred pages, the Jewish people must always subsist dispersed and wandering among other peoples, so that, not only with the deposit of the Scriptures, which they venerate and keep in reserve, but also with their very state, they bear witness to the faith of Christ. Who, through the mouth of David, prayed to the Father that He would not kill their lineage, which was hostile to Him, ne occidas eos (don’t kill them), but that He would disperse and degrade them with His power, disperge illos in virtute tua et depone eos (scatter them by your power; and bring them down). Which was to say: disperse them among all the nations of the world and let them be an ever living and present example of Your justice, and a palpable demonstration of the truth of the Gospel. ‘The Jews were dispersed,’ Augustine notes, ‘so that they might be witnesses of their own iniquity and of our truth’ (emphasis added).

Now, compare this to what Trent Horn rightly points out [01:41], “This movement to relocate Jews was called Zionism because in the Tanakh, the Hebrew Bible Christians called the Old Testament, Zion is the spiritual and geographic home of the Jewish people... the name came to represent the entire land of Israel as well.” The contrast could hardly be sharper; Catholic tradition holds the Jews perpetually dispersed as witnesses to the Gospel, while Zionism seeks their national restoration to an earthly homeland and kingdom. Far from supporting such a return, true theology asserts a divine right for the Church — not the Jewish people — to the Holy Land, sanctified by the Blood of Christ.

The root of Zionist claims is a literal, carnal interpretation of the Old Testament Scriptures (Deut. XXX, 1-5; Isa. XXXV, 10; Zech. VIII, 3) which blinds Jews to their higher spiritual fulfillment in Christ, whose kingdom is principally spiritual.¹¹ Anticipating an earthly messiah who would dominate their enemies, the Jews missed the true and spiritual sense of the Old Testament prophecies. As Msgr. Léon Meurin outlined in 1893, “The great prophecies of the Old Testament cannot be explained otherwise than by the Lord Jesus Christ, true God and true man. In him all the messianic prophecies and all the symbols of Mosaicism find their harmonious and rational interpretation.” Fr. Augustin Lémann, a Jewish convert to Catholicism and a serious authority on these matters, echoed this emphatically in his treatment of various Zionist illusions:

It is therefore their return to the Church, the spiritual Jerusalem, and not a return to the earthly Jerusalem of Palestine, that the Jewish people can and must hope for.

The Gospel came to bring and promised only spiritual goods [...] This charter of the Messianic kingdom, promulgated by Jesus on the Mount, will apply to the Jews when they enter the Church, just as it has applied, in all centuries, to all Christian peoples. It is towards the heavenly Jerusalem that they will raise their eyes, according to the example given them by the Patriarchs, their fathers, by not seeking here below a permanent city.

In light of the foregoing, consider the danger, then, of an organized, sizable presence of Jews in the Holy Land. Jews, Looking to fulfill messianic prophecy, which has long been fulfilled in the most important way, namely spiritually, the Zionists are seeking to impose an order on the world that usurps the order given by God:

Consequently, it is no surprise that modern theologians have issued dire warnings about the prospect of such a movement, linking Our Lord’s prophecy, “I am come in my Father’s name, and you [Jews] receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him you will receive” to the antichrist nature of Zionism:

Antichrist will establish himself in Jerusalem where a great number of Jews will have gathered through some such movement as Zionism. The vast majority of Jews have ever clung to the belief that God will one day restore the kingdom of Israel through a Messias — an anointed one — of the house of David. When Antichrist manifests himself to those in Jerusalem with his ‘lying wonders’ they will immediately proclaim him their king and Messias.

Without a doubt, Catholic theology, in a continuous line, condemns Zionism as a carnal misreading of Old Testament promises that have already found their true fulfillment in the spiritual kingdom of Christ and His Church, not in any earthly national revival. By fostering a mass Jewish migration to Palestine under the banner of messianic restoration, Zionism, in either a radical or moderate form, contradicts the divine ordinance of their perpetual dispersion as a witness to the Gospel. Further, it risks setting the stage against the warnings of the ancient fathers, doctors and theologians: a gathered Jewish presence in Jerusalem ready to hail the Antichrist as their awaited Messias amid his lying wonders.

Catholics, therefore, must reject such Zionist illusions with firm adherence to Tradition, directing hope for the Jewish people solely toward their conversion to the one true faith. The only hope, not unlike any other soul, is entry into the spiritual Jerusalem — the heavenly city which is none other than the Catholic Church and her mystical body — rather than an obsolete claim to earthly land or political dominion.

Constant Papal Opposition to Zionism from the Holy See

Finally, we will mention two not insignificant omissions from Mr. Horn which, even if not intended, obfuscate the strong and continual papal opposition to the Zionist movement throughout the first half of the 20th century. It is possible, we concede, that Horn is simply ignorant of these details, but with an audience as large as his (300k+ YouTube subscribers) it is hard to exonerate him: either he did not do his due diligence or, perhaps, he is uninterested in it, preferring comforting half-truths, instead.

The landmark judgement on the matter of Zionism, naturally, is that of Pope St. Pius X in 1904, recorded in the diary of Theodor Herzl.¹² While it is true that what His Holiness said was not, strictly speaking, magisterial, it was in his official capacity as a head of state and ought to be treated with due reverence by all Catholics. After denying that he would recognize the political sovereignty of the Jewish people, since they deny Christ, he said “if you come to Palestine and settle your people there, we shall have churches and priests ready to baptize all of you.”

In this same audience, His Holiness maintained, “Gerusalemme [Jerusalem]… must not get into the hands of the Jews”, later extending it to include what Herzl objected was merely secular land, Palestine.¹³ Reading through the exchange, it becomes clear that Jews migrating to the Holy Land can be tolerated, the Pope said as much, but the issue is their having political control and a State in the region. Unfortunately, while mentioning [3:41] this event, Trent Horn failed to pick up on this critical distinction — something his audience would not know unless they read the entire diary entry.

Worse, Horn’s commentary quickly turned to then Abp. Eugenio Pacelli (later Pope Pius XII), where he made a notable first omission, leaving out that after [05:07] “Archbishop Eugenio Pacelli… arranged for Nahum Sokolow, a representative of Herzl’s Zionist organization, to meet with Pope Benedict the 15th”, the ultimate judgement from the Holy See was less than favorable:

Using the royal “we” to claim this as the position of the Church, Pope Benedict XV’s trusted Secretary of State, Cd. Pietro Gasparri, plainly said that “The danger we most fear is the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine (emphasis added).” Also worth mentioning is that the official response of the Pope recorded in the Acta Apostolic Sedis¹⁴ was substantially the same, albeit less explicit, even though the original request from Nahum Sokolow was received sympathetically.¹⁵

The second major omission from Mr. Horn concerns Pacelli, again, this time in his capacity as a Cardinal. Horn fails to make the distinction between the Jewish people going to Palestine (even in large numbers) and their having political sovereignty and a State there. Strictly speaking, it is possible to have the former without the latter. In the video, he says [05:35] “In 1926, Cardinal Pacelli urged German Catholics to support those settlements in Palestine through the German Pro-Palestine Committee”, without further clarification and ignoring that Pacelli was only amenable to the former (settlements) but opposed the latter (Jewish statehood). How do we know this? One only has to look for proof in his Apostolic Delegate, Abp. Cigognani, who in 1943 and (surely) at the behest of the now pontiff, Pope Pius XII, intervened to prevent the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine:

In addition to the above quotation provided by the Jewish Virtual Library, another source, The Washington Post, confirmed the intervention of Abp. Cicognani, citing Rabbi Marvin Hier, then dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles.¹⁶ By omitting or underplaying this key distinction, Horn gave his viewers the impression of broader ecclesiastical sympathy for Zionism when, in fact, the exact opposite is true.

As we hope to have made clear, the Holy See’s consistent opposition to Zionism across multiple pontificates — from Pius X in 1904, through Benedict XV in 1917, to Pius XII in the 1940s — centered not on Jewish migration or settlement per se, but on the establishment of a sovereign Jewish state in Palestine, which was viewed as a direct threat to the sacred character of the Holy Land and Christian interests.

Post-Script

Not to be forgotten, the 20th century pope who we have not mentioned thus far, Pope Pius XI, was not a fan (to put it mildly) of Zionism, either. As reported by the Catholic News Services in October of 1923¹⁷ in a wire from London:

Ever since it was made fairly clear to the politically-minded Zionists that Catholics would resent the pushing of their ambitions in Palestine, with their resultant menace to Catholic rights in the Holy Places, there has been carried on in the Jewish press organs an unmistakeable campaign against the Catholic Church and also the Vatican. The first note of this campaign was sounded at Geneva, when the Holy See was more or less openly declared to be the enemy of Zionism, or at least to the realization of Zionist ambitions in Palestine (emphasis added).

One year later in 1924, this time in a Jewish paper The Sentinel,¹⁸ the position of the Holy See was confirmed. In a brief report from Warsaw entitled “Pope Issues Confidential Instructions Condemning Jewish Homeland” we read:

Pope Pius XI, according to the Jewish Tageblatt of Lodz, has issued confidential instructions from the Vatican in Rome to all of his European representatives, condemning the movement to establish a Jewish Homeland in Palestine. According to the Tageblatt, Cardinal Alexander Kakski, Archbishop of Warsaw, has received such instructions, signed by the Pope himself.

The Papal representatives are instructed by the Pope to take whatever steps they can to prevent the establishment of a Jewish Homeland in Palestine and to prevent wherever possible Jewish immigration to Palestine. They are also instructed to use their influence with European governments toward making more difficult immigration to Palestine (emphasis added).

END.

---

---

CONSIDER SUPPORTING THE JOURNAL OF AMERICAN REFORM!

As I intend to devote more and more time to this political project, I want to continue to provide free, educational material, whether visual (graphics) or written (essays, translations and a forthcoming book) content. If you have benefited from my work in any way, kindly consider supporting The Journal financially. On a personal note, I am married and duty-bound to provide for my family, so any help, big or small, is appreciated. Subscribe or make a one-time donation.

Regardless, the production of free material will continue, hopefully with ever-increasing quality, and I will keep all my subscribers notified of my plans.

In addition to Substack, the home of The Journal, my work, graphics and commentary can be found on the following platforms:

X: @AmericanReform_

Telegram: @American_Reform

1. Given that Mr. Horn is in possession of three master’s degrees in the fields of theology, philosophy and bioethics, coupled with his considerable audience, we feel it is appropriate to hold him to a high, exacting standard. We hope that, in due time, he will engage with the arguments presented, keeping to his personal website’s ideal to “persuasively engage those who disagree with [him].”

2. In this same part of the video, Mr. Horn seeks to bolster his argument by appealing to Benedict XVI, who is similarly careful to inveigh only against a fairly-narrow, overtly theological Zionism. Noting that the Church’s theological claims about the Jews include — among other things — their perpetual wandering and statelessness as punishment for the national crime of deicide, Benedict XVI is quoted in a 2018 Communio essay “Grace and Vocation Without Remorse: Comments on the Treatise De Iudaeis” as follows:

Zionism is incompatible with Catholicism if it contradicts the Church’s theological claims about Christ and the Jews. At its core is the conviction that a strictly theologically-understood state — a Jewish faith state [Glaubenstaat] 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. [11:40]

Recall that in this same essay, Benedict XVI spelled out the errant conciliar position, in opposition to the Catholic position which he identifies as the “theory of substitution,” and said:

The “theory of substitution”… which has hitherto determined theological reflection on this question, should be rejected. This view holds that after the rejection of Jesus Christ, Israel ceased to be the bearer of the promises of God, so that it could now be called the people “who were once your chosen people” (Prayer for the Consecration of the Human Race to the Sacred Heart of Jesus) (emphasis added).

3. Brigham Tomco, Why Gen Z is turning against Israel, (2025), Deseret News.

4. Msgr. Paul Glenn, Ethics, (1930), pp. 135-41.

5. Now, the one principle that could heal this initial defect is that of universal and peaceful acceptance, which could be invoked after a sufficiently long period of time and if it were for the sake of the common good. As to the first condition, in our view not enough time has passed and, importantly for the second, the “state of Israel” has been the preeminent enemy of the good of the native peoples and broader region since 1948.

6. William Eichler, Herzl’s Troubled Dream: The Origins of Zionism, (2023), History Today.

7. Cf. Pope Pius XI (Act of Consecration to the Human Race) “Turn Thine eyes of mercy towards the children of the race, once Thy chosen people: of old they called down upon themselves the Blood of the Savior; may it now descend upon them a laver of redemption and of life (emphasis added).”

8. Fr. Joachim Salaverri, S.J., Sacra Theologiae Summa, IB, (Baker translation: c. 2015), p. 36. — Cf. “When Jesus heard it, he marveled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel (Matt. VIII, 10)”; “Therefore I say unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof (Matt. XXI, 43).”

9. The unbelieving Jews of today, as noted by Pope St. Leo the Great, still retain their status as Israel in a certain sense, namely that of “carnal Israel”, who “understands not what it reads” in the Scripture, and “sees not what it points out.” Nevertheless, in God’s infinite mercy, they are able to reincorporated back into true Israel, the Catholic Church, by way of Holy Baptism.

10. As late as the year 1919, the theological reasons against the very existence of a Jewish state in the Holy Land were articulated by L’Osservatore Romano, a semi-official journal of the Holy See, confirming the explanation of Pope St. Pius X in 1904:

Opposing what was called the “Zionist illusion,” the article stated that the Jews had been dispersed by divine decree and would return to Palestine only after they had converted to Christianity. The author of this article went on to assert: “The salvation of Israel will arrive when all the nations open their souls to the hope of the Kingdom of God.” And he concluded by observing: “Even when East and West fully join the Catholic Church and the Jews accept Christianity, there will still be no assurance that the Jewish nation will arise again.” — Sergio Minerbi, Conflict in the Holy Land, (1990), p. 136.

11. Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas, (1925), no. 15.

12. Theodor Herzl, The Complete Diaries Of Theodor Herzl, (1960), vol. IV, pp. 1601-6.

13. Ibid., pp. 1603-4.

14. Pope Benedict XV, Acta Apostolica Sedis, (1919), pp. 100-1.

15. Sergio Minerbi, Conflict in the Holy Land, (1990), pp. 105-144.

16. As a brief aside and in light of the ongoing analysis of Mit brennender Sorge and National Socialism, it is interesting that in the same article, the British ambassador to the Holy See, Francis D’Arcy Osborne, quoted Pope Pius XII in a 1943 meeting as saying:

[H]e had “no complaints” about the Germans occupying Rome and that the Germans had “behaved correctly” when it came to respecting the neutrality of the Vatican.

17. Zionists Indignant at Failure to Gain Palestine Control, Catholic News Service, (1923), p. 5.

18. Pope Issues Confidential Instructions Condemning Jewish Homeland, The Sentinel, (1924), p. 2.