Major Archbishop Shevchuk: Freedom must never be taken for granted
Major Archbishop Sviatoslav Shevchuk, head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, condemns the war's cruelty and the use of high‑tech weapons, emphasizing that civilian casualties are not accidental. He highlights July 2026 as the bloodiest month of the war, citing 437 civilian deaths and 2,610 wounded, with the highest number of child casualties. The Archbishop calls on the international community to support Ukraine and to recognize the moral dangers of drone and missile technology that can target civilians with precision. He reflects on Ukraine's 35th anniversary of independence, stressing the value of freedom amid ongoing attacks on the capital and church facilities. He compares the conflict to the Iran‑Iraq war, noting how both have turned into a “war of the cities” with civilian suffering.
about 1 month ago
The interview with Major Archbishop Sviatoslav Shevchuk, conducted on Ukraine’s 35th Independence Day, highlights the escalating humanitarian toll of the war, the moral implications of high‑tech weaponry, and a call for global solidarity and prayer for peace. 1
Shevchuk reports that July 2026 was the deadliest month since March 2022, with 437 civilians killed and 2,610 wounded, including the highest number of child casualties since April 2022. 1
He attributes the surge in civilian deaths to Russia’s shift toward “war of the cities,” using sophisticated drones and missiles equipped with real‑time cameras and AI targeting, which make accidental casualties “unacceptable.” 1
The archbishop condemns the use of civilian suffering as a weapon, describing it as a crime against international humanitarian law and moral law. He cites a recent drone strike on a bus in Kherson as an example where the operator could see the victims. 1
He draws a parallel with the Iran‑Iraq war, noting that when front‑line advances stall, parties may resort to targeting civilians to achieve political pressure. 1
Shevchuk frames Ukraine’s independence as a divine gift of freedom, emphasizing that love for the homeland must not become idolatry. Freedom, he argues, is rooted in responsibility, the common good, and the dignity of every person. 1
He reflects on his own experience of underground religious life under Soviet totalitarianism, describing an inner spiritual freedom that later contributed to Ukraine’s democratic transformation. 1
The archbishop warns against “infantilism” and the abdication of personal responsibility, urging societies to defend democratic values and resist authoritarian tendencies. He calls on the Church to protect human dignity, especially against the challenges posed by artificial intelligence. 1
Shevchuk invites the global Catholic community to pray for peace on 24 August 2026, join humanitarian actions, and support the All‑Ukrainian Council of Churches’ appeal to Pope Leo XIV and the World Council of Churches. He highlights the planned prayer service at Saint Sophia Cathedral in Kyiv. 1*
Does the Church’s teaching on human dignity justify international intervention in armed conflicts?
The Church’s teaching on human dignity can justify international action to protect persons from grave harm, but it does not make every military intervention morally legitimate. The decisive question is whether intervention genuinely serves the common good and protects human life, while respecting moral limits and international humanitarian law.
Human dignity is not dependent on nationality, religion, political status, or military power. Pope Leo XIV describes every human being as created in the image of God and emphasizes that fraternity is an “unbreakable bond” uniting all people. War violates this fraternity when human beings are treated as enemies to be eliminated rather than as persons whose lives and dignity must be respected.
This universal character of human dignity means that the suffering of civilians cannot be dismissed as merely an internal matter belonging exclusively to one state. Pope John Paul II presents Catholic social doctrine as concerned with “the Gospel of life, justice and solidarity,” and insists that Christian morality has decisive social and public consequences rather than being a purely private affair.
Accordingly, the international community may have a moral responsibility to act when a population is subjected to grave violence, persecution, or systematic exploitation and when local authorities are unwilling or unable to protect it. The sources do not formulate a complete doctrine of military intervention, but they clearly support the principle that political borders cannot erase duties toward endangered human beings.
International intervention should not be identified immediately with armed force. The Church’s concern is the protection and advancement of the human person, and Pope Leo XIV stresses that fraternity must be expressed through “tangible effort,” solidarity, compassion, and concrete action.
Such action may include:
Pope John Paul II specifically calls for cooperation between international institutions and civil authorities to protect children from exploitation, trafficking, degrading labor, and the effects of conflict. This demonstrates that international solidarity is not optional when human beings are exposed to grave violations of their dignity.
The sources supplied do not state all the traditional conditions for a just war or provide a detailed legal test for humanitarian intervention. Therefore, they do not by themselves establish that a particular military operation is justified. They do, however, imply several demanding conditions.
The harm must be serious and objectively established. Archbishop Gabriele Caccia describes the consequences of contemporary warfare: mass civilian death and injury, displacement, destruction of hospitals, schools, sanitation systems, places of worship, and the long-term obstruction of human development.
The more extensive and foreseeable the harm, the stronger the moral duty to protect the population. Yet the existence of suffering alone does not automatically validate military action, since intervention itself can cause further suffering.
The purpose must be the defense of persons and restoration of peace—not territorial expansion, regime change for its own sake, economic advantage, revenge, or ideological domination. Catholic social doctrine must be guided by truth and moral responsibility, not treated as an ideology or a political “third way.”
A state or coalition cannot invoke human dignity as a pretext for pursuing unrelated national interests. The legitimacy of intervention depends substantially on whether its intention is truly directed toward the common good and the protection of the vulnerable.
Any use of force must respect the distinction between combatants and non-combatants and must avoid excessive harm. Archbishop Caccia highlights the principles of distinction and proportionality as essential protections for civilians. He reports that nearly 90 percent of those killed or injured by explosive weapons in urban settings are civilians, making the lawfulness and morality of such attacks deeply questionable.
He also states that attacks on objects essential to civilian survival and the use of densely populated areas as military positions treat non-combatants as “pawns of war,” rather than as persons to whom protection is owed.
Thus, an intervention intended to save civilians would contradict its own purpose if it relied on indiscriminate bombardment, foreseeable mass displacement, attacks on hospitals or schools, or destruction of the infrastructure necessary for civilian survival.
The Holy See affirms that states bear the primary responsibility to protect civilians, but also insists that everyone—including non-state armed groups—is bound by the limits imposed by international humanitarian law.
International law is therefore not merely a technical restriction placed upon military power. Its protections express moral truths about the human person: civilians are not legitimate targets, essential services must be protected, and the wounded, displaced, and defenseless must not be abandoned.
An intervention that violates these requirements cannot be justified simply by appealing to a good objective. A good intention does not transform intrinsically wrongful means into morally acceptable ones.
Because intervention involves the coercive use of political and military power, it requires legitimate authority and objective judgment. The materials provided do not specify a particular institutional mechanism, but they warn against arbitrary decisions in public affairs.
Schindler’s interpretation of Dignitatis Humanae emphasizes that rights are rooted in the truth about the human person and cannot be reduced to arbitrary exercises of power. Detached from truth, juridical rights can become arbitrary, with the state favoring one group over another without a stable moral standard.
Applied to armed conflict, this means that the language of human dignity must not be manipulated selectively. The same standards must apply whether the victims are politically influential or forgotten, whether the perpetrators are allies or enemies, and whether the conflict is international or internal.
The Church’s position therefore supports international cooperation, but not an unrestricted right of powerful states to intervene whenever they claim a humanitarian motive. Moral legitimacy requires impartiality, competent judgment, accountability, and fidelity to the truth about human dignity.
Intervention should aim not only to stop immediate violence but also to restore the conditions in which people can live with security, justice, family life, education, work, and social participation. Pope John Paul II describes authentic development as concerning “the whole man and every man,” and insists that political and economic structures must be evaluated according to the common good and social justice.
Military action that ends one form of violence while producing lawlessness, famine, persecution, or permanent dependency may fail the test of proportionality. Protection must be connected to reconstruction, reconciliation, justice, and the rehabilitation of social institutions.
For this reason, humanitarian intervention cannot be reduced to a military operation. It requires a long-term commitment to the people affected, especially children and displaced families. The Church’s concern for children in conflict situations illustrates this broader obligation: protection must include education, family support, moral formation, rehabilitation, and reintegration into social life.
The Church’s teaching can therefore be summarized as follows:
Conclusion: The dignity of every human person can impose duties beyond national borders, but it does not grant states a blank check to wage war. International intervention is morally defensible only when it is truly protective, proportionate, lawfully authorized, and ordered to the common good and lasting peace.