May 16-17, 2025
Dear parishioners,
As promised, this article will focus on the Church’s “Just War” Theory, and how it has been wrongly applied to the current U.S./Israeli conflict in Iran by the current administration. The principles of the Just War Theory can be found in paragraph n. 2309 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
CCC 2309
– the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
– all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
– there must be serious prospects of success;
– the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
It is important to note that the Catechism’s phrase “at one and the same time” means that all the conditions mentioned above must be present in order for a nation’s involvement in a war to be morally licit. Also, take note of the Church’s insistence that a nation’s involvement in war can only be for the “legitimate defense” of a country. The Church has always eschewed any hawkish or otherwise aggressive approach to initiating or prolonging war. By extension, then, this means that no country has the right to actually initiate a war; a country’s involvement must be more reactionary than preemptive.
With this information in mind, we can turn to the principles listed above. It would be extremely difficult for the U.S. and/or Israel to claim that they are on the defensive with regard to the situation in Iran. Aggressively assassinating the Iranian leader was a mostly unprovoked attack, despite whatever indirect help Iran might have provided to Israel’s enemies.
With the U.S./Israeli involvement not being defensive in nature, the other principles mentioned above also fall apart when trying to apply them to the situation in Iran. It is not even clear what the hoped-for outcome was of assassinating the Iranian leader. So, when considering the “serious prospects of success”, one is left to ask, “The success what, exactly?” In fact, with the former leader’s son now in power, Iran’s dictatorial regime has a second wind, and also has a bitter vendetta to carry out.
It is worth recalling at this point that Pope John Paul II was very much outspoken against the United States’ war in Iraq after September 11, 2001. In his many attempts to prevent the war, he insisted that being pro-life requires us to attempt all possible avenues to avoid armed conflict. He even had multiple opportunities to express this to President Bush himself. Additionally, Pope John Paul also sent numerous cardinals and Vatican diplomats to the U.S. and to Iraq, in the hopes of preventing the war. A couple months before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, John Paul addressed the Holy See’s diplomatic corps with these words: “Faced with the constant degeneration of the crisis in the Middle East… the solution will never be imposed by recourse to terrorism or armed conflict, as if military victories could be the solution.” War, he continued, “cannot be decided upon, even when it is a matter of ensuring the common good, except as the very last option and in accordance with very strict conditions, without ignoring the consequences for the civilian population both during and after the military operations.”
Please join me in praying for a peaceful resolution to the current tensions in Iran!
Blessings,
Fr. Ammanniti
