Bishop Conley weighs in with 'Just War 101'
Bishop James D. Conley released an op‑ed titled “Just War 101: Catholic teaching for a dangerous moment” addressing the U.S.–Iran conflict. He explains that Catholic doctrine is not pacifist but is skeptical of war, emphasizing the need to avoid violence whenever possible. Conley draws on his WWII veteran background and references Pope Leo XIV’s recent calls for peace to support his argument. The bishop stresses that the Church permits self‑defense but insists on pursuing all reasonable measures to prevent war.
5 months ago
Bishop James D. Conley of Lincoln, Nebraska, issued an op‑ed titled “Just War 101” urging Catholics to understand the Church’s teaching on war as the U.S.–Iran conflict escalates. He stresses that while the Church is not pacifist, it remains deeply skeptical of war and insists that any use of force must meet strict moral criteria. Conley aligns his call with Pope Leo XIV’s recent appeals for peace and urges prayer for a diplomatic resolution 1.
Conley says he feels a “special responsibility” to articulate Catholic doctrine during this “dangerous moment” 1. He affirms the right of self‑defence for individuals and nations against an unjust aggressor, but only when the war meets the Church’s conditions for justice 1.
Conley cites the Iranian regime’s repression of peaceful protesters, its history of sponsoring terrorism, and its pursuit of nuclear weapons as a “just cause” for defensive action 1. He argues a nation need not wait for an imminent attack before acting 1. However, he acknowledges “serious moral questions” about aspects of the conflict, especially the deployment of AI‑directed autonomous weapons, which he says the Church deems unjust 1.
Conley references Catholic theologian Charlie Camosy’s position that lethal actions in war must remain under human moral responsibility, rejecting fully autonomous weapons as incompatible with just war criteria 1.
The bishop recounts Father George Zabelka’s post‑World‑War II remorse after blessing the crew of the Enola Gay, highlighting the lasting moral trauma of bombing civilians and reinforcing the view that war is “not of Christ” 1.
Conley stands with Pope Leo XIV and USCCB President Archbishop Paul Coakley, urging Catholics and all people of goodwill to pray for a peaceful solution and for leaders to avoid further destruction 1.*
Evaluate Catholic doctrine on war versus peace in contemporary conflicts
Catholic doctrine does not treat war and peace as moral equivalents. Peace is the goal willed by God and the duty of politics, while war—though sometimes morally permissible for defense—remains a serious moral failure that is strictly constrained by the permanent moral law.
Catholic teaching insists that war is never an ideal solution. Pope Leo XIV frames the spiritual and political horizon in explicitly anti-war terms: “war is no help” in resolving conflicts, while peace is a “constant journey of reconciliation”.
This same conviction appears as a critique of a common modern temptation: treating peace as achievable only through deterrence, domination, or the perpetual readiness to use force. Pope Leo XIV warns that the post–Second World War principle prohibiting force to violate borders has been undermined, and that peace is increasingly sought “through weapons as a condition for asserting one’s own dominion.”
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops also emphasizes that war should not be normalized or treated as a routine instrument: there is danger in becoming indifferent because “there is a danger in the present time of becoming indifferent to war,” since war “is never a reflection of what ought to be but a sign that something more true to human dignity has failed.”
Pope Leo XIV highlights that peace involves continuous construction and vigilance: “While war is content with destruction, peace requires continuous and patient efforts of construction as well as constant vigilance.”
So, for Catholic doctrine, peace is not only “not-war,” but a moral project: justice, reconciliation, and the rebuilding of what violence destroys.
Catholic doctrine allows that, in limited circumstances, military force can be morally legitimate—but only under strict conditions. The Catechism stresses that the decision is grave and therefore “subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy.”
The key elements listed in the Catechism include:
Importantly, the Catechism notes that evaluating these conditions belongs to the prudential judgment of those responsible for the common good.
War is morally constrained not only by what happens during fighting, but also by the moral sequence of decision-making. The Catechism teaches that citizens and governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war, and that governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense only when the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power—“once all peace efforts have failed.”
This gives contemporary meaning to “peace versus war”: Catholic doctrine does not treat negotiations as window-dressing. Rather, negotiation and other peaceful means are integral to moral legitimacy, because force is not the first solution.
A central corrective to modern cynicism is the Catechism’s insistence that the outbreak of war does not create an ethical blank check. It quotes a principle attributed to Gaudium et Spes: “The mere fact that war has regrettably broken out does not mean that everything becomes licit between the warring parties.”
Thus, Catholic doctrine rejects the idea that wartime necessity cancels moral obligations.
The Catechism explicitly connects the Church’s moral urgency with the fifth commandment’s prohibition of intentional destruction of human life and the evils that accompany war. It states that, because of the “evils and injustices that accompany all war,” the Church “insistently urges everyone to prayer and to action.”
So even when defense can be legitimate, Catholic teaching maintains an insistence on conversion, restraint, and a spiritual moral accountability for violence.
Catholic doctrine provides moral lenses that remain relevant across technologies and geopolitical patterns. The evaluation typically turns on (a) cause and necessity, (b) last resort, (c) proportionality and discrimination, and (d) human responsibility.
Catholic teaching explicitly recognizes that the “power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily” when evaluating whether military force can meet the proportionality and legitimacy conditions.
In other words, modern capability increases moral scrutiny rather than relaxing it: greater destructive power makes it harder to justify force without producing evils “graver” than the evil to be eliminated.
The USCCB applies the logic of just-war restraint to specific practices and categories of harm. It teaches that even when force is justified as last resort, it “should not be indiscriminate or disproportionate,” and that “Direct and intentional attacks on noncombatants… are never morally acceptable.”
It further states that the use of weapons or means that do not distinguish between civilians and soldiers—such as weapons of mass destruction—is “fundamentally immoral.”
This is not an add-on moral preference; it is a concrete way of enforcing the Catechism’s insistence that the moral law still binds in war.
Contemporary conflict analysis is also shaped by long-term prevention. The USCCB background material frames nuclear disarmament as a critical issue for promoting sustainable peace and responding to militarism and military spending.
The emphasis is not merely on treaty compliance as technical policy, but on reversing reliance on weapons that threaten mass destruction and destabilize peace-building.
A distinctive contemporary issue is autonomous or semi-autonomous warfare, including lethal systems that operate without meaningful human judgment.
The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Dicastery for Culture and Education reports grave ethical concern that such systems lack the “unique human capacity for moral judgment and ethical decision-making,” and repeats Pope Francis’s call that “No machine should ever choose to take the life of a human being.”
Additionally, the same framework notes that the weaponization of AI and remote control can lead to “a lessened perception of the devastation” and reduced responsibility, potentially undermining the principle that war must remain a last resort and remaining under human oversight.
The Holy See’s UN statements make the responsibility argument even sharper: lethal autonomous weapon systems that lack appropriate human control pose ethical concerns because such systems can never be morally responsible subjects capable of complying with international humanitarian law.
Taken together, these sources imply a contemporary Catholic criterion: even when self-defense is morally contemplated, the means must preserve human moral agency and the possibility of lawful constraint.
The USCCB underscores that nations must prevent conflicts, resolve them peacefully, and address reconstruction and reconciliation after violence.
Catholic doctrine therefore evaluates the “war-versus-peace” question across the entire timeline: before, during, and after conflict.
The Catechism explicitly places the moral evaluation of just-war conditions within the prudential judgment of those responsible for the common good.
This supports a Catholic critique of both extremes:
The USCCB notes “fundamental moral concerns about preventive use of military force.”
In just-war terms, this coheres with the Catechism’s emphasis on necessity—harm must be “lasting, grave, and certain,” and other means must be impractical—conditions that preventive strategies often struggle to meet.
A Catholic evaluation of contemporary conflicts can be summarized as follows:
If these principles are applied consistently, Catholic doctrine does not glorify war; it disciplines it and simultaneously calls for persistent, patient construction of peace, with prayer and moral action that refuses to treat violence as normal.