Cardinal Pietro Parolin, Vatican Secretary of State, expressed deep sorrow regarding the renewed war in the Middle East. Parolin warned that international law is eroding, with justice being replaced by the law of force. He noted a dangerous rise of multipolarism characterized by the primacy of power and self-referentiality. The Cardinal highlighted the devastating impact of the conflict on human lives and the fragility of Christian communities in the region.
3 days ago
Cardinal Pietro Parolin, Vatican Secretary of State, gave an interview to Vatican News on March 4, 2026, addressing the US and Israeli airstrikes on Iran.1 2
He expressed profound sorrow over the war's impact on Middle East peoples, including fragile Christian communities, describing it as plunging regions into horror and spirals of violence.1 3
Pope Leo XIV had previously called it a "tragedy of enormous proportions" risking an "irreparable abyss" during the Sunday Angelus.1 5
Parolin warned that recognizing a right to "preventive war" without supranational oversight could set the world ablaze.1 2
He criticized the shift from the "force of law" to the "law of force," where justice yields to power and peace follows enemy annihilation.1 4
US President Trump justified the strikes as preemptive against Iranian attacks on US bases, but Parolin stressed force as a last resort after exhausting diplomacy.5 6
Peace must be pursued via diplomacy in multilateral forums like the UN, Parolin urged, recalling its post-WWII creation to avoid repeats of 60 million deaths.1 3
He lamented a "diplomacy of force" replacing dialogue, amid a multipolar world prioritizing power over common good.1 5
History shows politics through negotiation builds trust and preserves peace, not arms.2 6
War inevitably causes victims, destruction, and civilian devastation, Parolin noted, regardless of who is right or wrong.1 3
He condemned selective international outrage, insisting no "first- or second-class dead" exist and rejecting "collateral damage" for civilians.1 5
International humanitarian law must protect civilians, homes, schools, hospitals, and worship sites unconditionally.3 6
Parolin highlighted recent massive protests in Iran, bloodily suppressed, as unignorable aspirations for free expression.1 2
He questioned if missiles and bombs solve such issues, applying the same to the Iranian people as others.1 3
Principles like self-determination, sovereignty, and ius in bello are questioned, alongside disarmament and rights frameworks.1
A lost sense of common good fuels distrust in legal constraints, enabling self-referential power.5 6
Parolin invoked Kant: a rights violation anywhere affects everywhere.1
Parolin hopes Leo XIV's responsibility appeal resonates, halting weapons for patient negotiations.1 3
Peoples worldwide cry for peace, urging leaders to strengthen supranational norms despite a changed global order.1 2
Christians trust in Christ's non-violence, amid rising peace voices.1
Under Leo XIV, Parolin's prominence signals renewed emphasis on Holy See's traditional diplomacy with Iran.3
This contrasts with Pope Francis's ad-hoc approaches, like using Cardinal Zuppi for Ukraine-Russia mediation.3
Evaluate Catholic teaching on preventive war versus diplomatic resolution
The Catholic Church teaches that peace is the highest good and the normative state for human societies, with war—including preventive war—always an evil to be avoided through prayer, diplomacy, and exhaustive peace efforts. Preventive military action, aimed at countering non-imminent threats, raises grave moral and juridical concerns and is generally incompatible with just war doctrine, which prioritizes legitimate self-defense after all diplomatic avenues fail. Scholarly analyses confirm that classical and contemporary teachings reject purely preventive strategies, favoring international cooperation and negotiation.
The Church insists that all citizens and governments are morally obliged to work tirelessly for the avoidance of war, viewing it as a failure of human dignity rather than a solution. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) underscores this in the context of the Fifth Commandment:
The fifth commandment forbids the intentional destruction of human life. Because of the evils and injustices that accompany all war, the Church insistently urges everyone to prayer and to action so that the divine Goodness may free us from the ancient bondage of war.
Similarly:
Because of the evils and injustices that all war brings with it, we must do everything reasonably possible to avoid it. The Church prays: "From famine, pestilence, and war, O Lord, deliver us."
Pope John XXIII in Pacem in Terris (1963) emphasizes negotiation over arms:
Men nowadays are becoming more and more convinced that any disputes which may arise between nations must be resolved by negotiation and agreement, and not by recourse to arms.
There may be, and sometimes is, a clash of interests among States... When differences of this sort arise, they must be settled in a truly human way, not by armed force nor by deceit or trickery. There must be a mutual assessment of the arguments and feelings on both sides, a mature and objective investigation of the situation, and an equitable reconciliation of opposing views.
Relations between States... must be regulated not by armed force, but in accordance with the principles of right reason: the principles, that is, of truth, justice and vigorous and sincere co-operation.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) echoes this, warning against indifference to war and calling for prevention through peaceful means, reconstruction, and addressing conflict roots:
War is never a reflection of what ought to be but a sign that something more true to human dignity has failed... Nations should protect the dignity of the human person and the right to life by finding more effective ways to prevent conflicts, to resolve them by peaceful means, and to promote reconstruction and reconciliation in the wake of conflicts.
Recent papal teaching from Pope Leo XIV reinforces diplomacy as "unarmed and disarming" peace, urging disarmament of hearts and minds amid global tensions.
While diplomacy is preferred, the Church recognizes a right to lawful self-defense by governments when peace efforts fail and war's danger persists without effective international authority:
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."
Just war teaching permits defense of innocents against grave evil but demands moral restraint, ethical limits, and focus on non-violent alternatives first. Pius XII, as interpreted in scholarly sources, allowed force against "unjust aggression" broadly construed (e.g., genocide protection), but only in defense of fundamental goods, not preemptive strikes.
Catholic teaching explicitly problematizes preventive war—military action against potential future threats without imminent attack—as morally and juridically dubious. The CCC upholds the moral law's validity even in conflict, rejecting the notion that war licenses all actions.
Scholarly analysis of continuity from Aquinas to modern popes confirms:
Neither the classical theory, nor the contemporary magisterial teaching, would allow for a strategy of purely preventive military action: applying military force to counter an adversary who is either preparing to mount an attack at a still-undetermined point in the future, or... attempting to acquire a military capability that... would have devastating consequences... "Engaging in a preventive war without clear proof that an attack is imminent cannot fail to raise serious moral and juridical questions."
The USCCB notes: "The Church has raised fundamental moral concerns about preventive use of military force." Another analysis adds that preventive war typically fails just war's first principle (legitimate self-defense), though a narrow exception might exist for essential protection of others if demonstrably required for the common good, with stringent proof and international approval—still subordinate to diplomacy.
John Paul II specified humanitarian intervention (e.g., against threats to civilians) as potentially obligatory but only after failed non-violent efforts, with precise force and UN-like authority. Benedict XVI extended this to the "responsibility to protect," transferable to the international community if states fail.
Beyond national self-defense, the contemporary Magisterium requires supra-national authority (e.g., UN) for offensive actions like humanitarian enforcement, seen as organic development of just war theory rather than rupture. This prioritizes collective diplomacy over unilateral prevention. Pope Leo XIV's messages to religious leaders and on peace congresses call for synergy in defending the vulnerable through dialogue, not arms.
Pope Leo XIV (elected 2025) continues this trajectory, promoting "unarmed and disarming" peace amid hybrid threats and escalations. His 2026 World Day of Peace message invokes Isaiah's vision of swords into plowshares, tying Jubilee hope to inner disarmament. In addresses, he urges peacemaking as witnesses of Christ's peace. During his 2025 journey, he addressed NATO-Russia tensions, implicitly favoring negotiation over escalation.
Catholic teaching unequivocally prioritizes diplomatic resolution—negotiation, cooperation, and international authority—over any war, with preventive action deemed gravely questionable unless narrowly tied to imminent protection under strict just war criteria. Magisterial sources (CCC, papal encyclicals, USCCB) form the authoritative core, consistently urging war's avoidance as a divine mandate, while scholarly works clarify nuances without contradicting this.