Catholics and Jews after Carrie Prejean Boller

By Peter Wolfgang ( bio - articles - email ) | Feb 20, 2026

In the eighteen months I have been writing a near-weekly column for Catholic Culture, I have not been shy on the topic of Catholic-Jewish relations in the shadow of the Israel-Gaza War. You can read my previous work on the topic here, here, here, here, here, here and here. My emphasis has been that Catholics must firmly oppose antisemitism while carefully navigating the political and moral complexities of the conflict. While criticism of Israeli government policy is not inherently antisemitic, much contemporary discourse has crossed the line into outright hostility toward Jews—something Catholics have a particular duty to reject. I have tried to balance an acknowledgement of the suffering of the Palestinians, and the legitimacy of Catholic opposition to disproportionate Israeli military actions, with an affirmation of Israel’s right to exist and a recognition that we are where we are because of October 7th. Nostra Aetate is my lodestar in preserving and strengthening Catholic-Jewish friendship and in urging Catholics to reject hatred, pursue justice, and uphold the human dignity of all involved.

All of which brings us to Carrie Prejean Boller—the former beauty queen, hero in the fight against same-sex marriage, and recent Catholic convert—who blew up a White House Religious Liberty Commission hearing earlier this month. In about as neutral a description as I could find, Zeale reported it this way:

During a Feb. 9 hearing of the White House Religious Liberty Commission, commissioner Carrie Prejean Boller, a Catholic, cited multiple Catholic scholars, scripture passages, and Jewish leaders to argue that opposition to political Zionism and criticism of Israel’s actions in Gaza should not be labeled as antisemitism…’In my view, the United States cannot and must not make loyalty to a particular theology about Israel a litmus test for protected speech or moral legitimacy,’ she said.

My favorite response to Boller is Gideon Lazar’s:

This was such a dumb debate because they were equivocating about what is meant by “Zionism”. The Jewish guy was clearly saying that denying the right of Israel to exist is what he considers antisemitic, and she replies that she doesn’t consider Israel the fulfillment of prophesy, which is not what he was talking about. The Catholic Church recognizes the state of Israel and so would not be ‘antizionist’ by the definition the guy is giving. This is all besides the point of whether that is a good definition of antisemitism (I do not think it is) or whether Israel does have a “right to exist” (which I think depends on what is meant by that) or whether one agrees with the diplomatic stance of the Vatican (I do). Can we please at least have intelligent conversations about these things with clearly defined terms?

Lazar is exactly right. Whether you support or oppose what Boller did at the hearing, this is not a real conversation. So let’s have one.

First, begin with Jay Richards’ article “What Is Zionism? What Is Christian Zionism?”. The word means different things to different people. Some people understand “Zionism” in its original sense, with Theodore Herzl’s 19th century movement to establish a Jewish homeland which succeeded with the founding of the modern state of Israel in 1948. That political movement was not the same as broader theological hopes for a return to Zion, either among Jews or among Christians with beliefs about Israel’s role in salvation history. Richards describes five types of Protestant “Apocalyptic Zionism,” none of which are consistent with Catholicism.

Second, consider two Catholic pro-Israel reactions to the recent statement against Christian Zionism put out by Catholic and Orthodox Church leaders in Jerusalem. Political commentator Michael Knowles disowns Christian Zionism while at the same time making a pro-Israel case rooted entirely in secular politics. The Catholic Coalition Against Antisemitism (CCAA), meanwhile, speaks for a “minimalist Catholic Zionism” in four Jan. 20th tweets and even seems to out-Trad Michael Knowles by warning against a Catholic baptizing of modern geopolitics:

Michael Knowles and the CCAA represent two different strands of Catholic philosemitism. Both strands reject Christian Zionism. But the CCAA does not disdain the “Z” word altogether. However, its “minimalist Catholic Zionism” is quite distinct from the Protestant variety. Its progenitor, Gavin D’Costa, is strongly critical of Bibi Netanyahu and favors a two-state solution. Not exactly what we think of when we think of Christian Zionism. But also, at the same time, very far from much of the online Catholic discourse, where Zionism is treated as a swear word.

Here is my takeaway. A lot of the hostility that we are seeing (at least in the more responsible Catholic circles) is not driven by Jew-hatred or by opposition to the modern state of Israel’s right to exist. It is driven by a deep antipathy toward certain forms of Protestantism, antipathy toward a Christian Zionism which Catholics believe to have disproportionately influenced U.S. foreign policy to our own nation’s detriment. I am one of the more pro-Israel commentators that you are likely to read in online Catholic discourse and even I felt it when Ted Cruz, in his interview with Tucker Carlson, drew a straight line from Genesis 12:3 to U.S. commitments to Israel.

How do we untangle all this? At a time of growing antisemitism on both the left and the right, and in some Catholic circles, how do we separate out legitimate disagreement over current affairs, respect for Catholic orthodoxy, and the need to fight bigotry? I suggest that we start by attending—in person or via online streaming—the Coalition of Catholics Against Antisemitism’s conference on “Strengthening Jewish-Catholic Friendship at a Moment of Crisis” at Benedictine College in Kansas on April 22. You can sign up for the conference, which I will be co-moderating, here.