Posted on 04/15/2026 9:36:05 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Perhaps, and we'll get to an answer – or at least an argument for it – shortly. The better question created by the last two pontificates is this: Has the Catholic Church abandoned St. Thomas Aquinas' deeply considered and scripturally rooted "Just War Doctrine" in exchange for flabby and fashionable pacifism dressed up as Christianity?
We can address both questions without indulging in ad hominems and invective, I assure you, even when public officials (such as President Trump) can't restrain their frustration enough to keep the debate on point. The second question matters more than the first, especially in a world where genocides continue to unfold in Africa targeting Christians regardless of the modern embrace of total pacifism by the Church.
We must address the second question first, for the obvious reason: if there is no such thing as a "just war" in any context, then the first question becomes moot. Pope Francis more or less dispensed with Aquinas' Summa Theologiae doctrine (not to mention Saint Augustine, who first proposed it) in the last pontificate, writing in his 2020 encyclical Fratelli Tutti that modern warfare made any claims of justice through warfare "very difficult." His language in paragraph 258 makes his determination to close out the Aquinas formula altogether:
258. War can easily be chosen by invoking all sorts of allegedly humanitarian, defensive or precautionary excuses, and even resorting to the manipulation of information. In recent decades, every single war has been ostensibly “justified”. The Catechism of the Catholic Church speaks of the possibility of legitimate defence by means of military force, which involves demonstrating that certain “rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy” [239] have been met. Yet it is easy to fall into an overly broad interpretation of this potential right. In this way, some would also wrongly justify even “preventive” attacks or acts of war that can hardly avoid entailing “evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated”. [240] At issue is whether the development of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and the enormous and growing possibilities offered by new technologies, have granted war an uncontrollable destructive power over great numbers of innocent civilians. The truth is that “never has humanity had such power over itself, yet nothing ensures that it will be used wisely”. [241] We can no longer think of war as a solution, because its risks will probably always be greater than its supposed benefits. In view of this, it is very difficult nowadays to invoke the rational criteria elaborated in earlier centuries to speak of the possibility of a “just war”. Never again war! [242]
Pope Francis was correct that too many people attempt to justify aggression as "justice," but that doesn't negate the need for justice via force in every instance, either. "Never again war!" is a fine aspiration, but it only takes one to start a war, not two. The mechanics of war have changed since Augustine and Aquinas, but the malice and ambition of men and nations have not. Augustine and Aquinas thought deeply about those issues, reflected on scripture from both the Old and New Testaments, and posited that justice sometimes requires military action, even with the collateral damage and destruction it brings, in order to stop injustice by nations and quasi-state actors.
In the case of Iran, Fratelli Tutti actually speaks to the need for the Just War Doctrine. The regime not only has conducted war by proxies for decades against the innocent, including the massacres of October 7, but it also seeks out the nuclear weapons that Francis himself cited in the encyclical. They sought those weapons for the explicit purpose of using "an uncontrollable destructive power over great numbers of innocent civilians." The US and other world powers have tried every other means to stop Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons without any success, and by last summer, the regime was days away from creating the nuclear weapons that they would have aimed at Israel in an attempt to immanentize their cultish eschaton of the Twelfth Imam. Millions, perhaps hundreds of millions, would have died had the evil lunatics of the regime in Iran achieved that capability.
At least Francis made an argument and was careful enough to hedge it enough to allow for argument. Pope Leo XIV, whose pontificate is otherwise very promising, tossed out a glib comment that "God does not bless any conflict," a declaration contradicted by several passages in the Old Testament and arguably one or two in the New Testament. (Not to mention the entire narrative of the Battle of Lepanto and the Rosary.) That prompted Donald Trump to lash out personally against the pope, probably to the delight of Democrats who rushed from Planned Parenthood fundraisers to the doors of the nearest cathedral to profess the Wisdom of Catholic Doctrine. Neither side had an actual argument in the classic sense, or even a point.
This is what I mean by trading well-considered doctrine for flabby and faddish thinking. Yes, it's true that we should not want war, but the sad truth is that the world has plenty of countries and factions that do. The purpose of the nation-state, even in Christendom, is to provide security for its citizens and to ensure just relations with other nation-states. When nation-states or quasi-national factions pursue radical and extreme policies of mass murder and genocide, it is incumbent on other states, including Christian states, to end those evils by rational and just applications of power.
Neither Augustine nor Aquinas foresaw an end to war because their intellects grasped what these modern theologians have missed: man cannot be perfected except through Christ, and therefore evil would continue to exist and require remedies at the nation-state level. Both of them deeply considered the Gospels and the scriptures in identifying and then codifying the Just War Doctrine as a result. The biggest side question of this issue is when modern theologians assumed more intellectual heft and foresight than two of the greatest doctors of the Magisterium.
Having established (or re-established) the standing of Aquinas and Augustine, let us consider the Just War Doctrine as effective and turn to the specific example of the war against Iran and answer the first question. My friend Noah Rothman raises the question of what alternative was available to stop Iran's pursuit of massively evil power:
I’m by no means qualified to opine on Catholic dogma, but it seems suboptimal that Americans or the citizens of its allies should have to meet their maker before the U.S. would act in their defense for such an action to be construed as morally righteous.
Leave aside the evils practiced by the Iranian regime. Forget that it wantonly slaughters tens of thousands of its own citizens merely for petitioning their government for redress. Ignore for now the state-sponsored practice of disfiguring and even blinding women for the offense of wearing the wrong clothes, the summary and public execution of homosexuals, the impressment of children to serve as cannon fodder in armed conflicts, and so on. Few would dispute that Iran represents not just a direct threat to American security but an ever-present threat.
The Iranian regime has killed hundreds of Americans over the decades. It executes plots on U.S. soil to kill its elected officials, civil servants, and foreign dignitaries. It sponsors Islamist terrorist activity all over the globe, the foremost design of which is to shed the blood of Americans and their allies and to undermine its geopolitical objectives (the sacrifice of which would put even more Americans at risk).
Is it inherently nobler to placidly await inevitable acts of murder before preempting the would-be murderer? Are Americans as a people immoral for demanding inquiries into the intelligence failures that lead to bloody catastrophes? Should they not accept their fates in anticipation of a belated response to their untimely deaths?
These are the types of conditions that prompted Augustine and Aquinas to develop this doctrine. That doesn't necessarily mean it applies, but this framework from Summa Theologiae gives us the context for that debate:
War is justified (nation A wars justly against nation B) on the following conditions:
- It is called by a sovereign authority.
- It has a just cause.
- The combatants have morally right intentions (not vengeance or profit – see below).
- Qualifying Conditions (from the theory of double-effect on his justification of killing in self-defense: ST II-II, 64, 7).
- Cannot intend intrinsically evil actions.
- A good action, or at least a morally neutral action, will have two effects: a good intended, and an evil, not intended, but tolerated.
- Proportionality: the good to be achieved outweighs the evil of war.
Bear in mind that, as Pope Francis warned, it's easier than one thinks to fit all kinds of aggression into this formula. Also, Trump made a threat that absolutely fails on points 3 and 4(1) by talking about destroying an entire civilization. That was rhetorical escalation meant to force the IRGC to talk – and it worked, briefly – but it still arguably escalates this past Aquinas' framework if Trump actually takes that kind of action.
However, an argument can be made and supported that the war with Iran fits these requirements. Point 3 is still tricky, since one of the arguments made is that we are responding to Iran's long history of committing acts of war against the US. (Noah mentions that in his essay.) If anything, Trump's decision to blockade Iran rather than go for Bridge and Power Day indicates that he is acting with proportionality and avoiding "intrinsically evil actions."
What about the necessity of a "just cause" in point 2? Aquinas Online expands on the conditions that must be met in order to claim a just cause for military action:
- Just Cause
- Thomas Aquinas addresses causes which concern the nation (nation A) itself.
a. An enemy (nation B) is attacked because they deserve it.
b. The enemy is guilty of some fault.
c. A nation may war justly
i. To avenge a wrong.
ii. Punish enemy for refusing to make amends for some past fault.
iii. To restore what was seized unjustly.- Later thinkers have expanded the notion of just cause. (See ‘The Just War’ by Jonathan Barnes in The Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy (1982), pp. 771-785.)
a. Is war justified when someone other than the warring nation suffered from an enemy’s unjust aggression?
i. Friends and allies: Nation A may justly war on nation B to defend nation C. (See Thomas Aquinas, ST II-II, 188, 3 ad 1)
ii. The inhabitants of the enemy country (nation B) [a war of liberation].
a) St. Thomas More (1535) – Yes, war may be justified for humanitarian reasons.
b) Francisco Suarez (1617) – No, such a war violates the sovereignty of the other nation and will lead to international chaos.
b. There has not been any actual aggression from the enemy, but nation A has reason to fear that there is a threat of an attack from nation B [a pre-emptive war].
i. Francisco de Vitoria (1546) – No, wars are just only when redressing actual injustice.
ii. Francis Bacon (1626) – Yes, just fear is a lawful cause for war.
iii. Hugo Grotius (1645) – To threaten one’s neighbors is an actual injustice; it is aggression against peaceful order between nations.
Frankly, Iran's actions fall into most of these points. Liberating the oppressed Iranians would certainly qualify under Catholic doctrine, as would Hugo Grotius' condition of dealing with a nation that has continually not just threatened its neighbors but has been actively attacking them through proxies for nearly half a century. That includes the US directly but also our allies – Israel certainly, but also other Gulf nations and even countries in our hemisphere, such as the Hezbollah attack in Argentina in the 1990s.
Does this provide an ironclad "blessing" on the war from a Catholic perspective? I tend to think the argument is strong that this is indeed a "just war," especially considering the nature of the Iranian regime and all other efforts to counter its evil. However, others could also argue against it, even while considering the Just War Doctrine as in effect. That debate would be interesting, enlightening, and fruitful in restoring dignity and justice to both the Church and global relationships.
It certainly beats the pretentious, utopian, and vapid pacifism being spouted at the moment.
Update: Pope Benedict XVI had a better sense of this, with a hat-tip to Jiminacar on Twitter:
“Let us begin by noting some basic truths. It is impossible to overcome terrorism, illegal violence detached from morality, by force alone,” he wrote. “It is indeed true that the defense of the rule of law against those who seek to destroy it must sometimes employ violence. The element of force must be precisely calculated, and its goal must be the protection of the law. An absolute pacifism that refused to grant the law any effective means for its enforcement would be a capitulation to injustice.”
No.
They think it is not a just war.
However, where was the last Pope or the current Cardinal who became Pope Leo when terrorists invaded the peaceful communities in Israel and gouged out eyeballs, put a baby into an oven to kill him or her, gang raped mothers in front of children, ruthlessly killed terrified people returning from a music festival, and took dozens hostage into harrowing conditions and many died in captivity? Terrorists set up TVs to force young children to watch the cell phone scenes of rapes, dismemberment and murder.
Silence.
No, there is not.
The Catholic Church also ignored Hitler in the lead up to World War II and during World War II. They're 'selective' in a really creepy way... Now it's 'flabby and fashionable pacifism... it's hippie in the 60's for the non-spiritual 'leaders. Yucky and shallow.
Sure, just as soon as the Israelis stop calling Jesus a fraud.
I wouldn’t take any advice from the Catholic Church which makes up stuff. Don’t listen to any church, no so called religious men.
Listen to the whole 66 books of the Bible.
Only.
Any war/killing/irradicating/suppression/converting to Christianity (best hopeful possibility) of muslim’s is A O K with me. The pope and the vatican had the chance to purge the homsexuality and a multitude of other profit driven crimes they are involved for decades. These followers of eslam are subhuman expendable heathens who think nothing of killing their own...lets be the ones to assist them. We don’t need to seek this heretical businesses permission for ____ing’ thing.
Thanks for posting.
I’m skeptical that this is a just war, but least this attempts to address the issue head on...instead of the knee-jerk YOUHATETRUMPYOUREALEFTISTSHILL that I’ve seen elsewhere.
Getting too old and tired for this BS.
For a Roman Catholic, you’d have a stronger case to make that the U.S. actually IS “the Great Satan” than that a war against Iran is morally justified.
Many RCs argue the American revolution was wrong. https://catholicexchange.com/121409-2/
Let me know if you’d like deeper analysis of specific groups or ideologies!
as you know, neither this problem nor US intervention is new.Operation Praying Mantis was an attack on 18 April 1988 by the United States Armed Forces within Iranian territorial waters in retaliation for the Iranian naval mining of international waters in the Persian Gulf during the Iran–Iraq War and the subsequent damage to an American warship. The U.S. Navy attacked with several groups of surface warships, plus aircraft from the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise, and her cruiser escort, USS Truxtun. The attack began with coordinated strikes by two surface groups.In the 1990s, disputes between Iran and the United Arab Emirates over control of several small islands within the Strait of Hormuz resulted in further treats to close the strait. By 1992 however, Iran took control of the islands but tensions remained in the region throughout the 1990s.In December 2007 and into 2008, a series of naval events between the United States and Iran took place in the Strait of Hormuz. In June of 2008 Iran asserted that if it were attacked by the U.S. the strait would be sealed off in an effort to damage the world’s oil markets. The U.S. responded by claiming that any closure of the strait would be treated as an act of war. This further increased tensions and showed the importance of the Strait of Hormuz on a worldwide scale. - https://www.thoughtco.com/strait-of-hormuz-1435398'On 29 June, 2008, the commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guard, Mohammad Ali Jafari, said that if either Israel or the U.S. attacked Iran, it would seal off the strait to wreak havoc in the oil markets. Cosgriff warned that such Iranian action would be considered an act of war, and the U.S. would not allow Iran to hold hostage a third of the world's oil supply.[37] In the last week of July, in Operation Brimstone,[39] dozens of U.S., and naval ships from other countries, came to undertake joint exercises for possible military activity in the shallow waters off the coast of Iran. By 11 August, more than 40 U.S. and allied ships were en route to the strait.[40]On 27 December 2011, Iranian vice president Mohammad Reza Rahimi threatened to cut off oil supply from the strait should economic sanctions limit, or cut off, Iranian oil exports.[41] A U.S. Fifth Fleet spokeswoman said the Fleet was "always ready to counter malevolent actions", whilst Admiral Habibollah Sayyari of the Islamic Republic of Iran Navy claimed cutting off oil shipments would be "easy".[42] Despite an initial 2% rise in oil prices, markets ultimately did not react significantly to Iran's threat, with oil analyst Thorbjoern Bak Jensen concluding "they cannot stop the flow for a longer period due to the amount of U.S. hardware in the area".[43]On 3 January 2012, Iran threatened to take action if the U.S. Navy moved an aircraft carrier back into the Persian Gulf. Iranian Army chief Ataollah Salehi said the U.S. had moved a carrier out of the Persian Gulf because of Iran's naval exercises, and Iran would take action if the ship returned. "Iran will not repeat its warning ... the enemy's carrier has been moved to the Gulf of Oman because of our drill. I recommend and emphasize to the American carrier not to return to the Persian Gulf", he said.[44]By 23 January, a flotilla had been established by countries opposing Iran's threats to close the strait.[51] These ships operated in the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea off the coast of Iran. The flotilla included three American aircraft carriers, three destroyers, seven British warships, including the destroyer HMS Daring[52][53] and four Type 23 frigates, and the French frigate La Motte-Picquet.[54]On 22 April 2019, the U.S. ended the oil waivers, which had allowed some of Iran's customers to import Iranian oil, without risking financial penalties as part of U.S. economic sanctions. Al Jazeera quoted Major-General Mohammad Bagheri of the Iranian Armed Forces, stating "We are not after closing the Strait of Hormuz but if the hostility of the enemies increases, we will be able to do so...[58] If our oil does not pass, the oil of others shall not pass the Strait of Hormuz either".[59]Iran has persistently attacked vessels and seized ships amidst political issues.[35][60] On 13 June 2019, the oil tankers Front Altair and Kokuka Courageous were rocked by explosions shortly before dawn; the crew of the latter reported seeing a flying object strike the ship. They were rescued by the destroyer USS Bainbridge while the crew of the Front Altair were rescued by Iranian ships.In July 2019, a Stena Bulk Tanker, Stena Impero, sailing under a British flag, was boarded and captured by Iranian forces.[62] The spokesman for Iran's Guardian Council, Abbas Ali Kadkhodaei, was quoted as describing the seizure as a "reciprocal action". This was presumed to be in reference to the seizure of an Iranian tanker bound for Syria, Grace 1, in Gibraltar a few days prior.[63]In 2020, France deployed about 600 troops at sea and in the air under the CTF474 to protect maritime trade, regional business, and to ease local tensions. Since the first week of April 2020, the operation combines the Dutch frigate Ruyter, the French frigate Forbin, and one French airplane ATLANTIC2 (ATL2).[64]A May 2012 article by Nilufer Oral, a Turkish researcher of maritime law, concludes that both the UNCLOS, which came into effect in 1994; and the 1958 Convention on the High Seas would be violated if Iran followed through on its threat to block passage of vessels, such as oil tankers, and that the act of passage is not related in law to the imposition of economic sanctions. The article further asserts that a coastal state may prevent "transit or non-suspendable innocent passage" only if: 1) there is threatened or actual use of force, occurring during passage, against the sovereignty, territorial integrity, or political independence of a state bordering the strait; or 2) the vessel in any other way violates the principles of international law as embodied in the Charter of the United Nations.[108]As of 2013, the UNCLOS treaty had been ratified by 63 states, including most NATO-bloc and Soviet-bloc nations but with the notable exceptions of most of the OPEC and Arab League nations like Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran, as well as China, North Korea, and South Korea.[109] As of February 2026, 157 sovereign states, including the EU are parties,[110] including all major powers except the United States, which has not ratified the treaty.On 28 April 2015, IRGCN patrol boats contacted the Marshall Islands–flagged container ship Maersk Tigris, which was westbound through the strait, and directed the ship to proceed further into Iranian territorial waters,..Maersk says it agreed to pay an Iranian company $163,000 after an Iranian court ruling over a dispute about 10 container boxes transported to Dubai in 2005. An appeal court raised the fine to $3.6 million.[31]On 4 January 2021, the Tasnim News Agency reported that a South Korea–flagged oil vessel headed from Saudi Arabia to the United Arab Emirates was seized for allegedly causing pollution violations.In April 2024, the Iranian Navy seized[33] MSC Aries, a Portuguese-flagged container ship .. claiming that it had violated maritime laws.[34] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strait_of_Hormuz#U.S.%E2%80%93Iran_disputes,_threats_to_close_the_Strait
Ed Morrissey has my vote for Pope. I think those who vote Popes in, are so lefty & socialista brainwashed. That only 10% agree with Ed Morrissey.
So no nation should be helped unless they affirm the Biblical Jesus?
Islam is to be favored since it professes faith in a false Jesus, relegating the resurrected Christ who died as mankind's scapegoat atonement to being fictitious?
Aside from religious aspects, should an allied democratic country be helped, which comprises just 0.2 percent of the Middle East’s land mass while nations comprising 99½ percent of the ENTIRE Middle East land mass, have sought to kill or expel push the Jews from their ancient national homeland, and with Iran in particular attacks those who do not, with its primary object of military action being Israel and the US as it seeks dominance over all the Middle East?
You forgot to mention the rats line.
The Catholic Church didn’t recognize Israel until 1994 and then only insofar as diplomatically and politically, not from any theological view. In 2015 it recognized the “Palestinian” state. I see the CC as backed into a corner nowadays since the advent of the internet and the speed to which historical information is now processed meaning it can no longer suppress certain truths by employing the same levels of fear and intimidation throughout its history
Ed Morrissey has my vote for Pope. I think those who vote Popes in, are so lefty & socialista brainwashed. That only 10% agree with Ed Morrissey.
_____________________________
Ed states the proposition for a ‘just war’ very well. The problem today is that the world is filled with pacifists, who are willing to do sit on their hands and do nothing until the sword of Islam is at their throats. That’s because they refuse to believe in the existence of evil and its very presence on earth. This view is clearly not supported Biblically. It is also clear that the best representation on earth of evil is Islam whose major tenant is constant war(Jihad), death and destruction of the world in order to achieve the return of the last of 12 Imams, Mohammed al-Mahdi. An insane, lunatic proposition if ever there was one. Yes, pushing back against this lunacy is the epitome of a ‘just war.’
Isn’t this an issue started back in the 1100s and 1200s? It’s not a new thing — the popes and the Muslims. Nothing new under the sun. 🥱
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.