(RNS) — This past Sunday (July 26), Pope Leo XIV reflected once again with urgency on the theme of peace — a topic clearly at the center of his pontificate. At <\/span>his weekly Angelus address<\/a> <\/span>he called on all parties in the Middle East to stop the fighting “so that the peace so greatly desired by the entire region may be achieved without delay.”<\/p>\n The Holy Father has had a particular focus on the United States-led conflict in Iran over the past several months — referring<\/a> <\/span>to calls for direct attacks against the Iranian people as “truly unacceptable.”<\/p>\n In making these moral judgements, Leo is reflecting centuries-old Catholic teachings on war. Using deadly threats against civilians is both a gravely and intrinsically evil act — something which can never be done, for any reason, regardless of circumstances. The church’s moral theology has similarly referred to several such actions over the centuries: direct abortion and euthanasia, racism, usury, surrogacy, torture, and yes, intentionally threatening innocent lives in war. <\/span><\/p>\n There have been <\/span>some noises made<\/a> <\/span>in recent years in some corners of the church calling for a so-called paradigm shift in the church’s moral theology that would try to essentially get rid of the concept of intrinsically evil acts and exceptionless moral norms. But I’m happy these attempts have gone nowhere. Trying to overturn such ways of thinking would destabilize the church’s entire moral vision — especially when it comes to war. <\/span><\/p>\n Now, practically speaking, does church teaching disallow any activity which would negatively affect civilians? What about killing them? The answer is no, and the key differentiator is the intention of the agent and the nature of the act itself.<\/p>\n For instance, if U.S. generals ordered attacks on an electric generator serving a command bunker and this had <\/span>foreseen but unintended e<\/span>ffects on the rest of the Iranian power grid, this could be justified for what the church calls a proportionately serious reason. <\/span><\/p>\n There are clear distinctions drawn, however, between that situation and, say, an intentional attack on an Iranian power plant or <\/span>water desalination plant<\/a> where the goal is to cause severe hardship and suffering to the general civilian population in order to put pressure on the Iranian regime to capitulate to U.S. demands. If this sort of attack, as I’ve <\/span>suggested elsewhere<\/a>, was to produce widespread darkness, spoiled food, rampant disease, failed hospitals and the like in order to gain an advantage in the war, then the deadly consequences for civilians become part of the object or nature of the act itself. Catholic moral teaching insists that such actions can never be done for any reason — even if they could produce the good consequence of ending the war faster.<\/p>\n Catholics are not consequentialists. Period. Some actions are so evil, so fundamentally at odds with the good, that they must never be done.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/religionnews.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/webRNS-Leo-Consistory1.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
\n