Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Catholic
A Catholic Response to Trump’s Iran Threat

A Catholic Response to Trump’s Iran Threat

Last updated on: January 4, 2020 at 10:50 pm by Mary Pezzulo

A Catholic Response to Trump’s Iran Threat 2020-01-04T22:50:00-04:00 Mary Pezzulo

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

I want to say a few words about the president of the United State’s recent threat to the nation of Iran. You may recall that when the president ordered an assassination on a high-ranking Iranian official a few days ago, he didn’t make a statement at all, but just tweeted an American flag. Today, he’s making up for his silence in spades.

Today, on Twitter, the president threatened Iran in a series of three tweets which I copy and paste here in their entirety:

Iran is talking very boldly about targeting certain USA assets as revenge for our ridding the world of their terrorist leader who had just killed an American, & badly wounded many others, not to mention all of the people he had killed over his lifetime, including recently hundreds of Iranian protesters. He was already attacking our Embassy, and preparing for additional hits in other locations. Iran has been nothing but problems for many years. Let this serve as a WARNING that if Iran strikes any Americans, or American assets, we have targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats!

I’m going to leave aside the issue of a president using Twitter for such purposes in the first place, especially since the president of Iran has also been tweeting and promising vengeance himself. That’s apparently just what countries do now. I’m sure Roosevelt’s fireside chats would have seemed strange to the generation before him as well.

I’m also going to leave aside the moral issue of the assassination of Qassem Soleimani, not because I have no opinion but because I gave it yesterday. I’m also not going to address any of the very weird lines of argument popping up all over the internet, which essentially say that if you object to war with Iran you must think that the Iranian government is perfectly fine, because that’s nonsense. I don’t think many people outside of Iran’s leadership think Iran is led by good people. I certainly don’t. And I know I have readers from a variety of religions here, but I’m speaking primarily to the Catholics right now about what Catholics must believe and do or refuse to do.

I am frequently told, by certain Catholic factions and a certain priest not in good standing, that Donald Trump is “the most pro-life president in recent history” or words to that effect, and that it would be wrong to speak a word against him. And tonight, I am keen to just take this boast he’s made and try to line it up with Catholic just war doctrine.

For those who need a reminder, the Catechism states:

All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.
However, “as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed.”

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:
– 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 modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine.
The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

It further goes on to say:

The Church and human reason both assert the permanent validity of the moral law during armed conflict. “The mere fact that war has regrettably broken out does not mean that everything becomes licit between the warring parties.”

Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely.
Actions deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes, as are the orders that command such actions. Blind obedience does not suffice to excuse those who carry them out. Thus the extermination of a people, nation, or ethnic minority must be condemned as a mortal sin. One is morally bound to resist orders that command genocide.

“Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation.” A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons – to commit such crimes.

In brief, then, Catholics are required to work to prevent wars in any way they can. That’s Rule One. If, however, all else has failed and there’s a war going on anyway, “governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense.” Listen to what a guarded and qualified statement that is. It isn’t “in that case, they are welcome to bomb them back to the stone age” it’s “governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense.” There’s really never a situation where we get to be excited and cavalier about war as if it’s an honorable thing (sorry, C. S. Lewis). War is always a tragedy and a sign that humanity has failed, but sometimes it happens anyway and then governments can’t be denied the right to defend themselves, lawfully. That’s what you’re sometimes allowed to do if you must: not commit some atrocities of your own, but defend yourself lawfully.

A just and lawful act of defense must meet not one, two or three, but ALL of the following conditions: 1) the damage being inflicted on you must be “lasting, grave, and certain,” and that refers to the killing of actual humans there, not embarrassing your country or messing up a trade deal. People are more important than saving face or than economic interest, and that’s absolute: one human life is more important than a whole economy or a very big national embarrassment. 2) All other means must be shown to be impractical or ineffective. That means you’re absolutely sure you can’t just build the Great Wall of China or say you’re sorry or try another peace talk, they’re already flying their bombers to blitz you, it’s too late to do anything else but fight. 3) There must be serious prospects of success. You have to have real reason to believe that fighting back will actually protect someone. No courageous last stands that slaughter your whole army as a matter of principle, you have to think you can win. 4) The use of arms MUST NOT produce evil that is graver than the threat you’re trying to eliminate. You can’t bring a gun to knife fight, you can’t drop a thousand bombs on a country that’s only marching a small army toward you with ordinary guns, you can’t massacre their people for killing one of yours.

And, on top of all of this, even if the war you’re fighting in was a just war when you started: you have to respect non-combatants, prisoners and the wounded. Directly targeting any of them is a sin. It is a sin to commit genocide even if you’re a soldier just following orders. And it is gravely wrong to indiscriminately target “vast areas with their inhabitants.”

The president has threatened that if Iran strikes ANY American targets whatsoever, he’s going to destroy fifty-two Iranian targets including cherished cultural sites. With his usual eloquence, he assures us that these strikes will be “very fast and very hard.” None of those slow and soft missile strikes for Iran. I hope and pray he doesn’t actually do this, but that is the war tactic that our president is threatening if Iran takes any kind of vengeance for the assassination that the president ordered in the first place.

Whether the damage Iran inflicts will be lasting, grave, and certain depends upon what they choose to do– if they’re just shooting our drones out of the sky and costing us a lot of money, it’s not. If, God forbid, they assassinate some Americans, that is. Remember: human lives are more important than economics, full stop.

Whether or not we’ve exhausted all peace efforts in the first place seems a bit academic at this point, since Soleimani is already dead and we did that.

Whether this will be effective in preventing an attack seems to be pretty obvious. The president is describing what he plans to do after the fact, if Iran retaliates against the United States. This is what’s going to happen after they hurt us. It’s not an act of defense whatsoever; it’s a planned massive show of destruction in vengeance. Vengeance is not defense, so it’s not a legitimate reason to act with deadly force. It’s not a part of Just War Doctrine. It’s murder, and it’s not allowed.

And then there’s the matter of “evils and disorders greater than the evil to be eliminated.” The president has promised fifty-two “very fast and very hard” acts of vengeance against Iran if they attack America in any way whatsoever. Fifty-two Iranian sites for one or two or seventeen attacks on America. Obviously, this is grossly disproportionate and barbaric. There is no way a Catholic, or anyone else of goodwill, can defend it. It’s butchery.

And then there’s the matter of genocide. Remember, the Catechism says genocide is always grave sin. Even if the conflict you got into was just in the first place (which this doesn’t seem to be) and even if what you’re doing is proportionate to what’s being done to you (which it’s not), you cannot target non-combatants and you cannot commit genocide. The president is promising to destroy Iranian cultural sites. Which sites, he doesn’t say, but that doesn’t refer to military bases; it sounds like monuments, mosques or museums, maybe even whole cities for all I know. It’s definitely targeting non-combatants. And it’s directly, purposefully striking not Iran’s military might but its culture. Wiping out massive numbers of civilians in an attempt to destroy a culture is textbook genocide.

There is absolutely no way a Catholic can stand by and let his government’s leader mouth off like this. He’s threatening the gravest of sins. We as Catholics are obliged– not suggested but obliged– to work against this very thing, even if all we can do is speak out to anyone who will listen as I’m trying to do.

Humoring or supporting him in it would be a sin.

(image via Pixabay)

Steel Magnificat runs almost entirely on tips. To tip the author, visit our donate page.

preferential option for non-violence

president

pro-life

Public face of Catholicism

Previous Post

January 3, 2020

A Prayer Under a Blood-Red Sky

Next Post

January 5, 2020 Some Things Pro-Life Christians Need To Know About Iran

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category abortion Abuse Advent America American Christianity angel angels Annunciation Appalachia apparition apparition chaser apparition chasers apparition culture art art review babies baby baby Jesus Bad Lip Reading bad statue contest bath beauty Bible story blog blogkeeping blood book review Brandon Sanderson breastfeeding bus Catholic catholic conspiracy alarmism Catholic Oppositional Disorder Charismatic Renewal Charlie the Cat chastity Christ Christian idenitity Christianity and Judaism Chronic Illness clean clothing COD piece comedy compassion conscience conspiracy theory conversion cop-on-black violence Crucifixion cry of the poor culture Daesh Daily Saints death death penalty devotional diaconate diaper diapers dirty disability Donald Trump Dorothy Day dream drugs Eastern Catholicism Eastern Christianity education election election update Elsewhere on Patheos empathy environment Fear feminism film review fish flashback fluffy buns food Franciscan University of Steubenville Friendship Room fun Gabriel gardening gospel hair-splitting Heaven hell heresy Hillary Clinton history Holly the Witch Holy Spirit holy war Homeschooling homosexuality horror human dignity humor Icon idol immigrants infection inter-religious dialogue Interpretation of Scripture Islam Jesus Jihad Joseph joy laity and lay vocations lamb dinner laundry lent lgbtq literature love manners Mary Medicine and Science Meditation mercy mess milk misogyny Missouri monasticism monster motherhood mourn with those mourn movies movis music mystery nature neurodiversity New Pro-Life Movement news nonsense nostalgia O antiphons obituary objectification Ohio Valley Ordinary Time ordination Ordo Amoris parable paradox Passover peanut butter personal beliefs pets philosophy Planet Charismatic poetry politics polls poop Pope Francis Pope Leo power in the Church prayer prayer request prayers preferential option for non-violence president presidential election priest primary private revelation pro-life prophecy Public face of Catholicism Pure Flix Q and A race racism random rape rape. sexuality reader's request Reckoners refugee religious trauma ressurrection Right to life Saints saints and celebrations same-sex same-sex marriage satire scandal secular feasts seder Seven Joys Seven Last Words sex sexual ethics sexuality silencing six months skid row slavery social justice Speculative fiction spiritual abuse spoon stain story suffering suffrage suffragette Sunday Gospel temple Tenebrae Responsories Terror the exorcist The Friendship Room The New Pro-Life Movement Things I Learned on the Internet tin cup traffic true story tv review Uncategorized USCCB vice and temptation violence Virtue virtue and vice war Way of the Cross whimsy whole life women's ordination work of mercy Year A

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Which book in the New Testament is the shortest?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Philemon Jude 3 John 2 John