Pope Leo and the Just War Theory.
To all of this, the media and digital dimensions are adding new and decisive elements. Communication networks, fragmented information environments and algorithms that reward conflict can magnify polarization and resentment, increase propaganda and make shared discernment more difficult. Thus, war is not only fought, but also culturally conditioned through simplistic narratives, a friend-or-foe mentality, disinformation and fear. When historical memory fades and the ethical principles that protect civilians and the most vulnerable are weakened, it becomes easier to justify violence as necessary, inevitable or even “sanitized.” It is in this context that humanity is slipping into a violent culture of power, where peace no longer appears as a responsibility to be taken on, but as a fragile interval between conflicts. Today, more than ever, without prejudice to the right to self-defense in the strictest sense, it is important to reaffirm that the “just war” theory, which has all too often been used to justify any kind of war, is now outdated. [182] Humanity possesses far more effective and capable tools for promoting human life and resolving conflicts, such as dialogue, diplomacy and forgiveness. The use of force, violence and weapons reflects a relational poverty that always has disastrous consequences for civilian populations.
Pope Leo XIV, Magnifica Humanitas.
When first released, almost all of the attention given to Magnifica Humanitas was on his discussion of Artificial Intelligence, but then somebody noticed is comments on the Just War Theory, and now people are freaking out. Conservative Catholic pundits have already come out with the "Pope is wrong" commentary, and even an Anglican journal came out with an article to the same effect.
He isn't wrong.
And this isn't really new.
First of all, the Just War Theory was always that, a theory. It's not doctrine, and in some quarters its never been accepted. Moreover, since World War Two the Church has really made significant modifications to what can be considered a "just war".
So, what did Pope Leo really say here.
First, what's the Just War Theory hold?
Well, let's look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It states:
According to CCC 2309, the following conditions must be met in order for war to be just:
(1) The damage inflicted by the aggressor must be lasting, grave, and certain.
(2) All other means of putting an end to it must have shown to be impractical or ineffective.
So, presently, those are the criteria set out in the Catechism. Will this be changed? I suspect it will be modified. And frankly, based on prior statements by the last three Popes, the Catechism does not support the view that the Pontiffs have been stating. The thing that they've repeatedly stated is that war is only justifiable for defensive purposes. Hence the comment; "Today, more than ever, without prejudice to the right to self-defense in the strictest sense, it is important to reaffirm that the “just war” theory, which has all too often been used to justify any kind of war, is now outdated."
So, with this in mind, what we might suppose (although I'm treading on dangerous grounds here as I'm not a theologian) is that the Church would modify the material set out above to read:
A country may legitimately act in self defense when:
(1) The damage inflicted by an attacking aggressor must be lasting, grave, and certain.
(2) All other means of putting an end to it must have shown to be impractical or ineffective.
(3) There must be serious prospects of success.
(4) The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated (the principle of proportionality).
Is that a big change in what the Popes have been saying? Not really.
But does it effect some sort of a change? Well, yes. A clarifying one, in my view.
What I think the Pope's statement makes clear that the moral laxity in interpreting the Just War theory is not justified. It never has been, but all too often those citing it go on to hold that whatever war they're speaking of is kind of sort of justified by the theory. That should not have been the case, and it needs to come to an end.
It's needed to come to an end for a long time.
There's no way that, for example, the US and Israeli war upon Iran is a just war. No way. At least from the U.S. prospective, it's an illegal war as it defies the requirements of the U.S. Constitution for Congress to declare war, making it immoral to a certain extent from the onset. But the criteria required for a just war even as the CCC states it cannot be met. The first criteria alone, that Iran was inflicting damage upon the United States in a way that is lasting, grave, and certain, was never met. The repeated baloney that "they've been attacking us for 47 years" didn't come close to meeting this criteria. Yes, Iran is a sponsor of terrorism. Terrorism, however, is an act of the weak and is largely ineffectual. Launching a massive offensive against Iran was not justified by the fact that Iran acts immorally.
Indeed, on that score, the war does not meet, in my view, the requirements of the forth criteria. And it never met the requirements of the second criteria either.
A war launched to change the regime, which was an earlier excuse for the war, was certainly not justified.
And it turns out that the third criteria cannot be met either. The war has actually made the regime more hard line. The only chance for success would require a massive ground invasion of the country, which is certainly not proportional to the hoped for outcome.
What Pope Leo has clarified is something that other Popes have said, to some degree, and which follows the history of the discussion on the death penalty. Pope St. John Paul the Great made statements to the effect that the death penalty could not be justified in the modern world. The following two Popes amplified that. Catholic conservatives have still refused to accept that, but that's completely correct. In the modern world, the criteria which would allow for the imposition of the death penalty simply to not exist.
And with Pope Leo's statements, it seems fairly clear that the criteria for launching an offensive war never exist either. That's been somewhat presumed all the way back to the 1940s, but now its clear.
And, it should also be clear, this is not a mere academic discussion.
War is killing people and breaking things. There's no two ways about it. Killing people intentionally is gravely evil, except in self defense. Supporting killing people except in self defense is likewise gravely illegal. The same Catholic beliefs that hold that murder is immoral, that abortion is immoral, lead directly to war and the death penalty being immoral. You cannot, no matter how much you might want to stretch it, supporting abortion if you are a Catholic, and frankly at this point, you cannot support immoral wars.
It was Pope St. John Paul, I think, who instructed that Catholic lawyers should not represent people in divorces. Judges can still preside over them however. Which brings us to this next point.
Catholic politicians can clearly not support immoral wars. When people like Chuck Gray and Megan Degenfelder come around seeking votes, as they are Catholic, their position on this war should be asked of. If they support it, as Trump supports it, they're willing to condemn their souls to Hell for their ambitions, or at least risk that. Those Catholics in the Trump administration supporting the war, and we don't really know who they are (we know that Vance wasn't in support of it) are doing the same, to a larger degree. The military raid on Venezuela that occurred earlier likewise presents the same problem. Any invasion of Cuba, which it seems likely we will do, poses the same situation.
But beyond that, can Catholic servicemen morally serve in these wars?
I'm sure opinions will vary, but I don't think they can.
And that is a real change. And given that war involves death, that's a change for the good.
Related threads:
