On Palm Sunday, Pope Leo said in his homily that God "does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war." Since the start of the US-Iran conflict, the Pope has repeatedly called for peace and criticized war, and his comments have sparked a lot of discussion, especially among Catholics.
First of all, does the Church teach that it is possible for a war to be just?
The Church has long held that it is possible for a war to be just, but only if a number of very strict criteria are met. Essentially, a just war is a defensive war, pursued as a last resort. It is not enough that a nation seeks to right some wrong in another country, or to change the course of another country’s political development which appears to be heading in an unfavorable direction.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (§2309) lists four conditions:
- the aggressor’s damage to another nation must be “lasting, grave, and certain”;
- all other means of stopping this damage are “shown to be impractical or ineffective”;
- there must be a “serious prospect of success” in the defensive war;
- military action must be proportionate and “not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated”.
Two other conditions are also implied by the Catechism: a just war must be declared by a legitimate authority, and the intention must be precisely to restore peace.
Why do the Pope’s remarks seem to imply that all war is bad?
On Palm Sunday, Pope Leo said that no one can use Jesus, the King of Peace, to justify war. There are two, complementary ways to understand the Pope’s words. Firstly, the primary target of Pope Leo’s words are those who start wars, as well as those who justify doing so in the name of Christianity, be they leaders or ordinary citizens. We do not tend to think of a country justly defending itself against aggression as justifying the war into which it was dragged, even if it might justify its actions of self-defense.
But there is a second, broader point that should also be considered. While the theory of just war remains sound, the reality of warfare today is such that it may be nearly impossible for a defensive war to be completely just. Leaders may overestimate their chances of success, or may be hasty to pursue military action when diplomacy is still running its course. And even when a cause is just, nations still act in immoral ways.
For example, the deliberate targeting of civilians can never be morally justified — the criterion of proportionate military action refers only to legitimate military targets. In the Second World War II, even though many hold that the Allies had a just cause against the Axis Powers, the bombing of Dresden and the atomic bombings of Japan were gravely immoral because they targeted innocent people.
The Catechism also gives a very specific direction regarding the criterion of proportionality: “The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.” Many military thinkers evaluate proportionality in terms of collateral damage, and it is evident that some countries take a stricter approach to minimizing collateral damage, while others are prepared to tolerate many more civilian deaths in the course of striking legitimate targets. A more relaxed approach is a sign that proportionality is not being respected.
However, there is more to proportionality than collateral damage to civilians. Also worthy of consideration are the longstanding trauma to populations, especially the most vulnerable, the worsening of structural causes of poverty and inequality, and the sowing of hatred and desperation in those who grow up in a never-ending cycle of violence. Pope Leo has repeatedly noted this increase of hate, something that is not solved by ceasefires or the reconstruction of bombed buildings. If we take this wider view, we might realize that defensive military action can often be unjust in reality.
Also worthy of consideration are the longstanding trauma to populations, especially the most vulnerable, the worsening of structural causes of poverty and inequality, and the sowing of hatred and desperation in those who grow up in a never-ending cycle of violence.
How should we apply the Pope’s remarks and its implications to contemporary events?
In the context of the US-Iran conflict, Archbishops Robert McElroy (Washington, D.C.) and Timothy Broglio (Military Services archdiocese), among others, have already remarked that the US attack on Iran was unjust because it was not defensive — it was not responding to any ongoing or imminent and objectively verifiable attack.
The history of attacks from Iran’s proxy groups seemed to have weighed little in US decisions. Iran’s history of nuclear threats against Israel are a significant consideration, but we also know from recent history that intelligence gathering is an exercise fraught with much uncertainty. How certain and imminent was the threat, and what peaceful means could have been deployed to stop it, are legitimate questions.
We also know that air power in warfare leads to a particular pitfall in strategic thinking — leaders get overconfident about the abilities of aerial bombardment to achieve military goals, and when it fails, leaders feel compelled to ramp up attacks. This violates both the criterion that there be a good chance of success and the requirement of proportionality. We should also think about how repeated military action, whatever its apparent justifications, can corrupt the soul of a country and its leaders over time. This, I think, was what President Eisenhower foresaw when he famously lamented the power of the military-industrial complex in America.
~
Dr Michael Wee is a Catholic philosopher and bioethicist. He is currently a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Oxford. He has been a member of the Pontifical Academy for Life since 2020.
