Is the Pope Right About War?

COMMENTARY

By David W. Virtue, DD

www.virtueonline.org

April 6, 2026

Pope Leo XIV has come out aiming his theological guns at Donald Trump, issuing a direct appeal for peace and urging him to end the war with Iran. Ahead of the Easter holiday, the pontiff addressed the U.S. president and other world leaders, urging them to “look for solutions to problems” and to bring the conflict to an end.

Speaking with reporters at Castel Gandolfo, the pope said he hoped President Trump was searching for an “off-ramp” to the war.

“I’m told that President Trump recently stated that he would like to end the war,” Pope Leo XIV said. “Hopefully he’s looking for a way to decrease the amount of violence and bombing, which would be a significant contribution to removing the hatred that’s increasing constantly in the Middle East and elsewhere.”

The pope’s comments reflect a long tradition within the Roman Catholic Church that emphasizes peace and restraint in the use of military force. Yet they have also stirred debate within Christian circles about the Church’s own historical teaching on war.

The Just War Tradition

The Catholic Church has never held that all war is immoral. The concept of “just war” was first articulated by St. Augustine in the fourth century and later developed by St. Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century. The theory attempts to set moral boundaries around warfare, outlining conditions under which military action can be justified.

Traditionally, those conditions include:

A just cause, such as self-defense or the protection of the innocent

Legitimate authority declaring the war

Right intention, meaning the goal is justice and peace rather than revenge or conquest

War as a last resort, after diplomatic options have failed

A reasonable chance of success

Proportionality, ensuring the harm caused by war does not exceed the good achieved

Under these criteria, the Church historically recognized that war, while tragic, might sometimes be morally permissible.

Would anyone deny that World War II was justified? Six million Jews died in the Holocaust, and millions more soldiers and civilians were slaughtered across Europe and Asia. Fascism threatened to dominate the continent. Adolf Hitler and his regime represented one of the most destructive forces in modern history. The Allied war effort ultimately defeated Nazism and brought an end to one of humanity’s darkest chapters.

It also defeated Japanese totalitarianism, which was one of thre cruellest and most racist regimes in history. Anglican theologian Gerald McDermott visited Singapore recently where Singapore Christians reminded him of how grateful all Asians are for the Allies' victory over the Tojo war machine that tortured and murdered untold numbers of their parents and grandparents.

The just war tradition has often been invoked to explain why such a conflict was morally necessary. Even pacifists are grateful that Japan and Germany were defeated. Without that war, we would all be speaking German or Japanese.

A Moral Dilemma for Soldiers

In a related development, Archbishop Timothy Broglio—who heads the Archdiocese for the Military Services and serves as president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops—recently commented on the current conflict.

Broglio has ministered to U.S. military chaplains since 2007. In an interview scheduled to air on CBS’s Face the Nation, he suggested that the U.S.–Israeli war against Iran may not meet the traditional criteria of a just war.

He said that Catholic service members facing moral questions about the conflict should strive to “do as little harm as you can.”

Broglio also described claims that God explicitly approves of the war as “problematic,” arguing that pre-emptive military action raises serious moral concerns.

When asked directly whether the war against Iran could be justified under just war theory, Broglio responded:

“I would think, under the just war theory, it is not, because while there was a threat with nuclear arms, it is compensating for a threat before the threat is actually realized.”

His comments reflect a long-standing debate within Christian ethics: whether pre-emptive war can ever be morally justified.

Critics Push Back

Some theologians disagree with the pope’s tone and emphasis. Robert A. J. Gagnon, a well-known biblical scholar and ethicist, has argued that broad condemnations of warfare risk overlooking the long-standing Christian framework that allows for military action under specific conditions.

Gagnon maintains that just war theory recognizes the moral responsibility of governments to defend their citizens and protect innocent life. Ignoring that framework, he argues, can lead to moral confusion in times of crisis.

He has urged church leaders to provide greater clarity about how traditional teachings apply to modern geopolitical threats.

The Iranian Threat

Iran has been widely identified by Western governments as a state sponsor of international terrorism for decades. Through proxy forces such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza, Tehran has extended its influence throughout the Middle East.

Its leaders have repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel.

On the day Iran declared war on Israel, Hezbollah also launched attacks, forcing Israel to fight on multiple fronts. Hamas rockets continued to strike from Gaza, while Houthi forces in Yemen periodically launched missiles into Israeli territory.

From Israel’s perspective, Iran represents an existential threat—particularly if the regime were ever to acquire nuclear weapons.

To argue that President Trump was manipulated by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu does not withstand scrutiny. Israel has faced simultaneous threats from several directions and believes its survival may be at stake.

Besides, most are unaware of what became known (to those willing to look, which means only a few) shortly before the war started. The director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency testified about the deadly peril of Iran’s roughly 400 kilograms of 60% enriched uranium which would allow Iran to produce at least 10 fission bombs in short order.

One critic of mainstream reports has added, "There was no applause, no gratitude, no support [when Israel and America tried to eliminate this imminent threat to the world]— only more “anti-colonial” polemics against Israel, and even more anti-American resentment, as if the conjunction of nuclear weapons with fanatics waiting for the return of the Twelfth Imam and the “end of history” were not a danger unprecedented in history."

Peace at Any Price?

The pope calls for peace. In that desire, he speaks for millions. But peace cannot always be purchased at any price.

Scripture itself acknowledges the reality of war. The Old Testament contains numerous accounts of Israel engaging in battle at God’s command against nations that threatened its survival. The Bible’s moral landscape is not one of absolute pacifism.

Even in the New Testament, Jesus did not rebuke the Roman centurion whose servant he healed. Instead, he commended the soldier’s faith. At no point did Christ demand that the centurion abandon his profession.

This suggests that military service itself was not inherently condemned.

And Jesus' parables are full of hints that he believed force was necssary to destroy radical evil--such as in his parable of the ten minas where he said the (presumably righteous) nobleman said of his enemies, "Bring them here and slaughter them before me" (Luke 19:27).

A War of Attrition

The present conflict increasingly resembles a war of attrition. Previous American administrations often gave the Iranian regime diplomatic latitude, sometimes with devastating consequences for stability in the Middle East.

Iranian leaders have repeatedly chanted “Death to Israel” and “Death to America.” These slogans are not merely rhetorical flourishes. Tehran’s policies and regional interventions suggest a determination to challenge the Western order and expand its ideological influence.

President Trump appears determined to prevent that outcome, as does Israeli leadership.

Americans may face economic hardship as a result of the conflict. Yet supporters argue that confronting Iran now may prevent a far greater catastrophe later.

Reports indicate that Iran possesses missile systems capable of striking far beyond the Middle East, potentially reaching Europe and even parts of North America.

If Iran were allowed to develop missiles and nuclear weapons unchecked, Israel might eventually feel compelled to use its own nuclear arsenal in self-defense. The consequences would be unimaginable.

A Clash of Ideologies

The struggle in the Middle East is no longer merely a regional dispute between Sunni and Shiite powers. It increasingly reflects a clash of political systems, religious visions, and competing worldviews.

This is clear now when Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and Bahrain are urging Trump to finish defeating Iran.

Turkey’s president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan once dismissed the idea of “moderate Islam,” declaring simply, “Islam is Islam.” Statements like that raise questions about whether ideological reconciliation with militant Islamist movements is truly possible.

For critics of the pope’s position, calls for peace that fail to acknowledge these realities risk emboldening aggressors rather than restraining them.

The Hard Road to Peace

Peace is always the ideal. Yet history shows that lasting peace sometimes requires confronting forces that threaten global stability.

Defeatism is not the answer.

END