Trump administration has riled head of Catholic church over use of theology to justify conflict in Iran
The contrast in experience between the two men disagreeing over war and theology was striking.
On the one side was Pope Leo XIV, the first North American to head the Catholic church and the first cleric from the Augustinian order, who this week visited the modern Algerian city where Saint Augustine once lived. For Leo, who wrote his doctoral thesis on Augustine’s ideas, it was the culmination of a lifelong intellectual interest.
On the other, the US vice-president, JD Vance, a very recent adult convert to Catholicism with no academic background in the history of the church’s thinking.
The surest way to peace is to round up Trump and all his cabinet and deliver them to Iran to with an apology note and a promise that it will never happen again.
They can deal with punishing Trump, Vance, Miller, etc.
This is the only way forward that will begin to heal the world from the damages the US has caused.
I call it the Throw The Fuckers Under The Bus solution and if it doesn’t work. Well, at least we don’t have to look at these dumb fucks that created this most recent shit show to begin with.
Theologian here, although not Catholic.
We could see this debate as the Catholic church being more progressive than the US and in part it’s true. But it’s a quite conservative view within the Catholic tradition: in the beginning of Christianity, all violence were deemed unjust, and people preferred to die than to be violent. Then Augustine and others theorized the just war, which is the base of the international war law. But in the 20^th century, the Catholic church evolved on the subject, stating again that all war were unjust:
- Any apotheosis of war is to be condemned as an aberration of mind and heart. (Pope Pius 12, 1953)
- It becomes impossible to believe that war is the appropriate means to obtain justice for a violation of rights. (Pope John 23)
- There is no just war (Pope Francis, 2022)
The current version of The Catechism of the Catholic Church never use the expression “just war”, and justifies only violence in case of defense.
So the fact that the pope is arguing about just war is not the church being progressive, but being in fact fusty according to its own tradition. I think the definition the pope has to just war is not the Augustinian one, but one that limit war to defense, so the difference between him and Francis on the ideas is in fact non-existent, but the usage of the expression is by itself a defeat.
I would love to have a belief that there is no just war but then I just think of WW2
Maybe it’s wouldn’t be Just, but it’s not like there was any other option. You wouldn’t be able to talk Hitler out of invading and taking over Europe.
Definitely not the case with Iran though, that was America being the aggressor like Hitler was.
Sometimes, we need to do something evil to prevent something worse. But that doesn’t make the evil thing good, right or just.
Apparently only atheists read the catechism these days:
2309 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.
Vance’s war of choice meets none of the criteria. There was no certain damage (Iran has been “Two Months Away”™ from having nukes for 20 years, and even if they had them doesn’t mean they would use them), negotiations were still officially ongoing, they went in without even having concrete goals let alone a plan to end the war, and then started by bombing a school.
Does he think that if he can arrange a meeting and debate with this one he’ll die too?
I still don’t get why Pakistan/China/russia/India nearby are so chill with Iran having nukes if they really were going towards that…
Everybody’s got nukes these days, that isn’t really even the issue. The issue is the Conservative Propaganda Machine has convinced everybody that the very second that Iran has an operational nuclear weapon, they are going to launch a hundred of them and instantly destroy the entire world, and since they get high on their own supply, they’ve convinced themselves most of all.
In reality, Iran would do what everyone has done once they’ve gotten their hands on a Nuke - they use it to demonstrate that they deserve a seat at the big table, where they can influence international geopolitics.
For one, all these countries have their own nukes which cancels out their nukes. Ever heard of MAD?? Also, Russia is a close ally with Iran and that alone makes them very chill with each other.
I don’t see anyone in the EU cheering for polish/ukrainian nukes or the same for Japan/SKorea, etc. MAD is not obvious in a multipolar world and alliances can shift quickly. E.g. China does not trust theocrats.
If Ukraine had kept their nukes, the war would have never happened to begin with… When countries give up nukes or nuke programs, they get invaded. Simple as that.
It’s not that simple, but generally I agree that Ukraine needs nukes. But you can’t have every country and their grandma rushing to nukes simply to ensure their sovereignty. You need blocks and sharing umbrellas at best, otherwise there are too many points of failure in a network of deterrence that it is inevitable that one careless or mistaken shot triggers full armageddon in 30 minutes.
PS: I’d suggest one nuke permit per civ/continent/trade block eg USA+partners, EU++, russia+whatever, China+partners, India, Pakistan++, African Union, Latin America, Indonesia?, Iran++?, Arab Countries?, Australia…starting to get messy now… The only problem left to solve here is the borders of the blocks and how countries decide to move from one block to the other eg Ukraine, Brexit, Mexico, Egypt, Turkey, etc.
People nowadays really don’t read enough to understand the world
Just nowadays?
Tell us you don’t understand modern geopolitics without telling us you don’t understand modern geopolitics
Well, they did say they don’t get it.
