Born in Cologno al Serio, a village near Bergamo, in 1965, and the youngest of the “papabili” tipped last April to succeed Pope Francis, Pierbattista Pizzaballa is a Franciscan who was ordained a priest in Bologna in 1990. He has spent most of his priesthood in the Holy Land, where, after obtaining a degree in Biblical Theology in Jerusalem in 1993, he taught Hebrew and held various ecclesiastical positions before being appointed by the Pope in 2020 as Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, the head of the Latin Catholic Church in the Middle East. A man of dialogue, at the head of a Church composed mainly of Arabs, he can speak Hebrew with Israelis. He is an important player in the interfaith dialogue that is one of the twenty proposals of the “Trump plan.”
F. T.
Florence Taubmann — In the 1980s, as a young Italian priest, you came to Jerusalem to study Biblical Theology. What motivated you at that time?
Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa — I had no motivation other than the duty of obedience. I am a Franciscan. As a monk, I took a vow of obedience to my Superior, and when he asked me to come to Jerusalem, I came. My vocation in the Holy Land did not come from a revelation or a particular moment of enlightenment. Things changed and became incarnate when I entered into the culture and reality of this land.
F. T. — When you were young, what was your relationship with Judaism?
P. P. — Before arriving in Israel, I had no relationship with Judaism, for the simple reason that there are very few Jews in Italy. I knew they existed, but they were not a part of my life. The Jews were the Jews I encountered in the Gospels, the Jews of 2,000 years ago.
F. T. — Do you think that Judaism in Israel is different from Judaism in the diaspora?
P. P. — Obviously. In European countries and elsewhere, Jews are a minority and Christians are the majority, despite the effects of secularization. Here, it’s the opposite. Jews are the majority: they are the cultural, religious, and political majority. The state is Jewish. The state encompasses the police, the army, and political power. And we Christians are a minority. So relations are completely different: they cannot be confined to the religious sphere alone, but also concern politics, administration, etc.
F. T. — What does it mean for you, as a Catholic, to be in the minority?
P. P. — First of all, it’s not a tragedy. Your question is typical of Europeans, who are not used to being in the minority, particularly in cultural terms. What’s important when you’re in this situation is to have something to say. Something specific to contribute to the life of the community, to society, to the state, right here and now.
But of course, we suffer from the complexes typical of minorities, and it’s easy to think that everyone is against us, although most of the time that is not the case. Basically, the majority doesn’t think about us; they ignore us. As I told you, when I was young in Italy, I had never seen a Jew. Here there are many Jews who have never seen a Christian. So when they think of Christians, they tend to think in terms of prejudices, stereotypes, what they have seen in movies, or heard in old stories. This of course is not always the case, because some people know that Christian society is very different from the stereotypes. But, to answer your question, the main challenge of being a minority here is to keep the Christian community united. This is not easy, because the Churches are very different in terms of their creed, culture, history, and the language in which they worship. It can only be done if Christians remain aware of their identity, the beauty of their vocation, and their faith. The oldest minorities are particularly affected by this challenge.
F. T. — In 2014, you organized a Prayer for Peace with Presidents Shimon Peres and Mahmoud Abbas. What memories do you have of that day?
P. P. — I remember all the angles and rough edges in the preparation of this event. Everything was discussed, right up to the last moment. Especially the speeches, which had to be read and accepted by both parties. It wasn’t easy, but we managed it. That’s when I understood the importance of leadership. In this region, more than anywhere else, you have to know how to compromise and get others to compromise too. The event was a powerful, symbolic moment. We need symbols like this because they allow us to see that another kind of reality is possible.
F. T. — Would you say, nonetheless, that it was pointless?
P. P. — Pointless? No. Obviously, it didn’t change the situation. And right after that, there was a war in Gaza. So it was difficult, but it wasn’t pointless. I repeat, we need symbols, we need things that are right, so that we can remember that it is possible to build a different path.
F. T. — Do you think such an initiative would be possible today?
P. P. — Let’s be realistic. Conditions today are not the same. Societies are not in the same frame of mind. Above all, there are no leaders capable of carrying out this kind of project. First, the war must end, and sufficient acts must take place and words must be exchanged to restore a measure of trust between the peoples. But for that to happen, good leadership is needed to prepare the ground and organize meetings in order to build a way forward. There must be a will to do so, and today no one seems to have that will.
F. T. — Would you say that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has a theological dimension?
P. P. — It is mainly a political conflict, but with very clear religious connotations. Look at what the settlers, the religious Zionists, say, and how they use the Bible. Look at what Hamas says, and the names it gives to its battles, notably “the Al-Aqsa flood” for October 7. Behind the issues of territory and borders, there is a theological and religious dimension. But peace can also be based on this dimension.
F. T. — Are you thinking of interfaith dialogue, which is one of the 20 points of the Trump Plan? Do you believe in it?
P. P. — I have been working on interfaith dialogue for 40 years. The most important thing is that this dialogue should bring together people of faith, people who believe. There can be no ecumenical or interreligious dialogue without faith. This is essential because in the Middle East, belief in God is a pillar of life. In Europe, religious faith is considered a private matter. Here, it’s different: religion plays a prominent and visible role that affects mindset, culture, and daily life.
In these circumstances, interfaith dialogue can help to create a different narrative, one that makes room for everyone. My great regret is that we have allowed extremists to take control of the narrative. They are the ones telling the story: Hamas on one side, and radical settlers on the other.
We need to build a solid, serious narrative that does not use the Holy Scriptures for political ends by twisting their meaning, but respects them in all their richness and complexity. And we must inject this narrative into public discourse in order to create different attitudes based on openness and respect. I want to believe that this is possible.
F. T. — This year marked the 60th anniversary of Nostra Aetate, the Second Vatican Council declaration that inaugurated a new attitude of respect and friendship on the part of the Catholic Church toward Judaism and the Jewish people. However, since October 7, many Jews, in Israel and elsewhere, have interpreted the statements made by the Pope and many Catholics as a step backwards, even a change of course. What do you think?
P. P. — I disagree. Everything that has been built and accomplished since Nostra Aetate remains. But the appalling massacres committed by Hamas on October 7 led to a war, a terrible war. The reactions, statements and declarations of the Pope, and of many Catholics, express rejection and condemnation of this war in Gaza, whose destructive nature appears unacceptable and unjustifiable. But I am certain that neither the Pope nor the Catholic Church has any negative intentions towards the Jewish people. There is no conflation of the Jewish people with the government of the State of Israel, and no confusion.
F. T. — Pope Leo has stated that dialogue between Jews and Christians must continue, but he is referring to theological dialogue. Is that sufficient?
P. P. — I can only speak about the dialogue between Jews and Catholics, because the issues with other Christian denominations are not the same. Let’s say that there are subjects that we have never discussed among ourselves and that it would be important to address. One is the interpretation of the Old Testament; the other is the relationship with the State of Israel. For the Catholic Church, Israel is a state like any other, and relations are purely political. However, for the Jewish people, the State of Israel is not just a state: it is their essential point of reference. This is a subject that involves not only political issues, but also deeply sensitive questions of identity and history. Perhaps the time will come to start thinking about that. There is no guarantee that we will agree, but it would be good to talk about it.
F. T. — And with Muslims?
P. P. — At some point we will have to include them in this dialogue, and we will all meet together. For the simple reason that we all live here together – Jews, Christians, and Muslims – and no one should be excluded.
F. T. — As a Catholic, do you engage in dialogue with the evangelical Christians who have such a strong influence in American politics?
P. P. — Evangelicals form a galaxy that includes very diverse congregations and movements. We have relationships with some of them, but many of them refuse any contact with us. Their messianic theology is very different from ours, and their political message, which is often extremely radical, is very influential in Israel. We are careful not to get caught up in political activities with which we strongly disagree. We do have relationships with traditional Protestant churches, on the other hand, as well as with Orthodox churches. Whatever the situation, we must remain open to any opportunity for dialogue that may arise.
F. T. — Do you consider Jerusalem to be the eternal and indivisible capital of the State of Israel, or the capital of both states, or rather an extraterritorial city?
P. P. — From a political point of view, the future of Jerusalem should be decided jointly by the Israelis and the Palestinians. Assuming they want that. However, Jerusalem is not just about the Palestinians and the Israelis. The religious dimension is fundamental; Jerusalem is Christian, Jewish, and Muslim. It has to be remembered that this city is a symbol for billions of people around the world. Both the local and the universal dimensions should be taken into account.
F. T. — Does the Catholic Church want a change in the management of the Holy Places?
P. P. — It’s difficult to answer this question since the situation isn’t always the same. Some Holy Places are located in Palestinian territory, sometimes in areas occupied by settlers. Others are privately owned by a religious congregation, and a few belong to France. Not all of them have the same importance or the same symbolic weight. This means that the status quo should be maintained. Above all, it is essential that the Holy Places, wherever they are located, should be treated with special consideration by the political authorities, either the Israeli government or the Palestinian Authority. Even though they enjoy extraterritorial status, they are an integral part of the life of the country. They are symbolically sensitive for billions of human beings.
F. T. — How do you, as Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, work daily for peace, especially during the last two years?
P. P. — I have always been committed to dialogue with Jews and Muslims. But what has become very clear to me today is that political powers, religions, and institutions in general are all weak. None has a vision to offer, none proposes improvements to people’s lives. On the contrary, they often become instruments in the service of war.
We must therefore act differently, working alongside them, through networks, associations, and movements. There are many people of good will, and I am convinced that it is possible to build outwards from civil society by creating projects and redefining attitudes. I have said this often, and I believe it more and more. If we go on living with structures and mentalities based on violence, supremacy, and exclusion, things will collapse, and we will have sacrificed the future.
Even in times of darkness, there are still people, and new people rising up, who are capable of thinking and reflecting, and believing in the possibility of revealing something different – a new narrative, a new discourse, a new vision of society.
F. T. — Your words have a prophetic tone. You studied Biblical Theology – which figures, male or female, do you prefer in the Bible?
P. P. — I like many characters in the Bible, but for me two men and one woman stand out.
The two men are Jeremiah and Jonah. Both, each in their own time and context, are called on by God to fulfill a mission that they do not want to fulfill. Jeremiah must announce to his people that they are heading for disaster, that they are responsible for what will happen, and that it is going to be terrible: destruction, exile, deportation. His is a solitary, magnificent voice, but no one wants to listen to him, and he is persecuted by his own people. When disaster strikes Jerusalem, the exile to Babylon begins. But then – and this is what is so powerful about Jeremiah – he reaffirms his love for his people and refuses to abandon them. Despite his profound disapproval, he wants to share the fate of his people.
As for Jonah, I like his stubborn character. When God wants to send him to the city of Nineveh to curse the inhabitants and call on them to repent, he refuses his mission. Knowing God’s mercy, he is afraid that He will grant His grace to his enemies. But God is as stubborn as Jonah, and of these two strong personalities, it is God who wins of course. What is beautiful about Jonah’s character is his profound humanity, and the difficulty in understanding which he expresses in his prayer in the belly of the whale. So he ends up accomplishing his mission, and the book concludes with a happy ending, but above all with a question: “How could I, God, not have compassion for all these people? Are they not all my children?”
The woman I would like to mention is Hannah, the mother of the prophet Samuel. Her moving prayer inspired that of the Virgin Mary, mother of Jesus. She finds herself in a state of great weakness, barren and desperate, but she carries within her an immense force of hope that gives her the breath of prayer. She will have a son, Samuel. Her refusal to resign herself is a model for many Christians around the world.
F. T. — What you are saying, through these examples, is that it is possible to express radical criticism while remaining faithful to one’s mission, but also to preserve the capacity for hope in the darkest situations. Today, would you say that Israel is guilty of genocide in Gaza?
P. P. — Words get trapped by the causes that make use of them. They are diverted from their meaning. Whatever their legal definition, the words genocide and apartheid have become part of a partisan narrative. I refuse to come down on one side or the other.
F. T. — Is it possible for you to speak as freely as this with rabbis in Israel? Do you meet with them? Is it possible, as a Christian, to criticize Israel without being accused of anti-Semitism?
P. P. — Personally, I meet with rabbis, and it is possible to have these kinds of discussions, though of course not with all of them. It all depends on the nature and closeness of the relationship. More broadly, I think you have to be free, honest, and respectful in your exchanges. It is impossible to remain silent. But it is very difficult, because the situation is extremely polarized.
F. T. — And with non-religious Jews?
P. P. — I have more contact with secular Jews than with religious ones. But being secular does not mean being atheist. Most of them are believers, they just don’t belong to mainstream religious movements, but rather to groups or associations apart from official Judaism. There are quite a few of them and they are open to dialogue with us, even more than our human capacities allow!
Furthermore, we really need to distinguish between “Jewish” and “Israeli.” It’s true that we have very few exchanges with Israeli society, and its history, culture, and literature. I regret that, but there aren’t enough of us, and we need the right people to engage a dialogue.
F. T. — Is it easier to be a Christian in Israel or in Palestine?
P. P. — It’s difficult on both sides. When you belong to a minority, you have to constantly prove yourself. Nothing can ever be taken for granted.
F. T. — How do you see the future of Christians in a Jewish state?
P. P. — Today, a lot of Christians are emigrating, but so are Muslims and Jews. People are leaving both Israel and Palestine. Cyprus is becoming a very attractive destination, as are European countries and many other places. The risk is that only the least open-minded and least tolerant will remain. But I don’t think we will disappear.
F. T. — How do you explain the Vatican’s long delay in recognizing the State of Israel?
P. P. — Relations existed before recognition, but they were unofficial. For example, an apostolic delegate was put in place in the 1940s. The process took time because of the political situation, the fate of the Palestinians, the life of Christian communities in Arab countries, and the wars with Israel. Official recognition took place in 1993, after the Oslo Accords.
F. T. — Are you optimistic about the future?
P. P. — I am not optimistic about the short term, but, as a believer, I have hope. A lot will depend on the people themselves, on civil society. We must understand in order to accept the existence of the other. At present, both Israelis and Palestinians see themselves as the victims. Once again, it is a question of narrative. Language creates reality, and the words you use can be used to destroy. Language has been exclusionary for too long, even before October 7.
F. T. — Do you think that a process similar to South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation is desirable and possible?
P. P. — The situations are not comparable. It takes certain conditions for that kind of process to get under way. In this case, the Palestinians need real prospects for the future. Then a new page can be turned.
F. T. — A documentary entitled “1948” was broadcast in September on Israeli public television. It revisits the War of Independence, demolishing certain legends that cast the country in an overly favorable light. Is this reinterpretation of history necessary?
P. P. — For some time Israeli historians have been re-examining historical facts, and analyzing them more objectively from the standpoint of Israel’s responsibility. I think this is a very positive step. The Palestinians should also adopt this approach but, for human, social, and emotional reasons, they still find it difficult to question themselves.
F. T. — Last question: Many Palestinian supporters say that Jesus was the first Palestinian. Would you agree with that?
P. P. — My God! Jesus was a Jew living in Palestine at that time.
F. T. — And today, would Jesus be Israeli?
P. P. — Oh, no, no! He would be an Italian from Bergamo! It must be repeated that Jesus did not solve any of the political problems of his time. That was not his mission. He never wanted to be a political leader.
