Catholic moral theologians concerned by claims U.S., Iran struck civilian infrastructure
Catholic theologians from Notre Dame and the Catholic University of America condemned U.S. and Iranian strikes on civilian infrastructure, arguing such attacks violate moral conduct and Catholic just war principles. The piece details recent U.S. strikes in southern Iran that destroyed port infrastructure, including a water desalination plant that supplies 30 villages, with U.S. officials denying that civilian facilities were targeted. Iran has responded by striking power plants and water facilities in Kuwait and Bahrain, prompting those countries to urge energy and water conservation. Former President Trump escalated threats to civilian infrastructure, promising retaliation for each Iranian ship strike, while Iran’s foreign minister responded with reciprocal threats.
2 months ago
The recent escalation of hostilities between the United States and Iran over the Strait of Hormuz has sparked serious moral concerns among Catholic theologians, who argue that intentional attacks on civilian infrastructure violate both Catholic just‑war doctrine and international law. 1
A Pakistan‑mediated ceasefire that began on April 8 2025 ended on July 8 2026, reigniting fighting in the Middle East. On July 17 2026 the United States conducted strikes in southern Iran, which Tehran alleges hit civilian sites such as a water‑desalination plant serving 30 villages. 1
Iranian state media reported that the U.S. attack damaged a water‑desalination plant, a wheat storage facility, roads, bridges, and commercial fishing piers. U.S. Central Command confirmed strikes on port infrastructure but denied targeting the wheat facility and did not address every specific allegation. 1
Iran has responded by striking power plants and water facilities in Kuwait and Bahrain, both of which rely heavily on desalination for drinking water. 1
Joseph Capizzi (Notre Dame), Charles Camosy (Catholic University of America), and Taylor Patrick O’Neill (Thomas Aquinas College) all emphasized that deliberately targeting civilian populations is intrinsically immoral. Capizzi called the prohibition “absolute” in both moral and international law and warned against using “dual‑use” justifications without solid proof. 1
Camosy stressed that Catholics are not consequentialists; the ends do not justify harming innocents, and any attack that makes civilian suffering the means to a political goal is morally impermissible. 1
O’Neill added that the principle of double effect might allow striking a truly dual‑use target only if civilian harm is a foreseen but unintended side effect and proportionality is maintained. He warned that attacks on purely civilian infrastructure resemble terrorism. 1
The theologians referenced the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which declares that intrinsically evil acts—such as targeting innocent people—cannot be justified by any good intention. They also invoked St. Thomas Aquinas’s doctrine of double effect and St. Augustine’s call for war to be waged only to secure lasting peace. 1
Former President Donald Trump threatened to strike “one bridge or power plant” for every Iranian ship attacked, while Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi echoed an “eye for an eye” doctrine. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio refrained from ruling out civilian strikes, citing the president’s policy. 1
The theologians concluded that any intentional targeting of civilian infrastructure breaches the Catholic just‑war criteria of discrimination, proportionality, and the moral prohibition against using civilians as means to an end. They urged policymakers to prioritize peacemaking over punitive attacks that endanger non‑combatants. 1
Does Catholic doctrine permit targeting civilian infrastructure in war?
Catholic doctrine does not permit the deliberate targeting of civilians or “civilian infrastructure” (in the protected sense: places and services needed for civilian life, such as hospitals, sanitation, schools, and places of worship). Legitimate force in war must be governed by discrimination (distinguishing combatants from non-combatants) and proportionality—and acts that aim at or effectively produce indiscriminate destruction of civilian areas are condemned as grave wrongs.
The Catechism states that non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely, and that actions “deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes,” with “blind obedience” not excusing them.
It also condemns “every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants” as “a crime against God and man” deserving “firm and unequivocal condemnation.”
Catholic just-war reasoning requires that, once a conflict begins, “the traditional principles of proportionality and discrimination must guide the use of force.”
Vatican II makes a closely related point: it is one thing to undertake military action for “just defense,” and something else to seek “the subjugation of other nations,” and “the mere fact that war has unhappily begun mean[s] that all is fair between the warring parties.”
Vatican II explicitly teaches that an act of war “aimed indiscriminately at the destruction of entire cities of extensive areas along with their population” is a crime meriting “unequivocal and unhesitating condemnation.”
Similarly, an episcopal teaching (Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales) says that what “has never been accepted by the Church” includes:
and it adds that even if done for a “good cause,” these “cannot be regarded as legitimate military tactics” but are “acts of terror.”
In a 2022 address, the Holy See warns that urban warfare can “devastate critical civilian infrastructure—such as hospitals, sanitation systems, schools, and places of worship”—and that this leads to lasting harm (including preventable disease and obstruction of humanitarian assistance).
That same address notes that civilian protection norms (including protections against attacking objects “critical to the survival of civilian populations”) aim at preventing harm to civilians, especially where densely populated areas make distinction difficult.
Based on the sources above, Catholic doctrine rules out deliberate targeting of protected civilian life and the kinds of attacks condemned as indiscriminate or terrorist-like.
At the same time, the Church’s moral logic emphasizes that the answer can turn on whether an objective is treated as a legitimate military target and—crucially—whether the attack is carried out with discrimination and proportionality, rather than aiming at civilians or producing indiscriminate effects.
Your question asks about “targeting civilian infrastructure,” which in ordinary usage usually means infrastructure serving civilians (or intended to be used for them), and that is precisely the category the Church highlights as requiring special protection.
Conclusion: Catholic doctrine does not permit the deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure in war, and it condemns attacks that are indiscriminate or that target protected civilian institutions (like hospitals and schools) as grave moral wrongs. Legitimate defense must instead follow discrimination and proportionality to avoid treating civilians and essential civilian life as legitimate objects of attack.