Reflecting on meeting with Leo, Rubio emphasizes distinction between role of Church and nation state
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio discussed his meeting with Pope Leo XIV in a May 13 Fox News interview. Rubio emphasized that the Catholic Church promotes peace, but the U.S. as a nation-state has different responsibilities regarding security and war. He noted that some conflicts, such as with Iran, cannot be resolved through diplomacy alone, despite extensive diplomatic efforts. Rubio highlighted the distinction between religious advocacy for peace and the practical duties of a sovereign state to protect its citizens.
5 months ago
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio reflected on his May 7 meeting with Pope Leo XIV, underscoring that the Catholic Church’s peace‑building mission differs fundamentally from a nation‑state’s security responsibilities, especially regarding the Iran nuclear issue and broader geopolitical conflicts. 1
Rubio described the encounter with the “American pope” as unusually straightforward and lasting over an hour.
He said the discussion covered a wide range of topics, including the plight of Christians in Africa and Lebanon, and the Vatican’s global presence. 1
Rubio emphasized that the Church advocates for peace and the avoidance of war, a role distinct from that of a sovereign government.
He argued that while the U.S. also seeks peace, a nation‑state must sometimes act when diplomatic efforts fail, citing the long‑standing failure to halt Iran’s nuclear ambitions and the lack of a diplomatic solution to Adolf Hitler’s aggression in World II. 1
Rubio reiterated the United States’ primary duty to protect national security, stating that “Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.”
He noted that the administration can maintain a clear stance while continuing cooperative work with the Vatican, which has historically opposed nuclear weapons. 1
Earlier in May, Pope Leo XIV affirmed the Church’s long‑standing opposition to all nuclear weapons, rejecting claims that the Vatican supports them. 1
Rubio highlighted that this shared moral perspective allows for dialogue between the State Department and the Holy See. 1
The remarks came amid tension between the Trump administration and the Holy See, with President Trump urging Rubio to convey a firm anti‑Iran‑nuclear message.
Rubio’s interview on Fox News framed the meeting as part of broader U.S. efforts to balance faith‑guided values with geopolitical imperatives. 1*
Distinguish Church’s peace advocacy from state’s security duties
The Church’s peace advocacy and the state’s security duties are not opposites. They refer to two related levels of moral responsibility: the Church proclaims peace as a universal good to be built through dialogue, justice, and (where possible) disarmament; the state has the concrete duty to protect the common good by ensuring social stability and, when gravely necessary, legitimate defense under strict moral limits.
The Church does not treat peace as mere absence of fighting; it is a positive and active reality that must be “cultivated and protected.” When peace is reduced to a distant ideal, “aggression spreads into domestic and public life,” and war is accepted as if it were a normal means.
This peace is also universal and indivisible: it cannot be thought of as security “of some” disconnected from “collective security and peace of others.” That connection is part of why the Church pushes not only moral restraint in conflict, but also structural efforts that reduce the causes and chances of war.
In contemporary terms, the Holy See links peace with a shift away from a “balance of arms” mentality toward integral disarmament, especially regarding weapons of mass destruction.
At the same time, Catholic social doctrine affirms that the common good requires peace—understood as “stability and security of a just order”—and that this “presupposes that authority should ensure by morally acceptable means the security of society and its members.”
From this follows a real moral category: the “right to legitimate personal and collective defence.”
Importantly, the Church teaches that defense against serious threats is not a license for unlimited violence. Catholic moral tradition limits legitimate defense through the just war framework, including conditions such as the gravity and certainty of the harm, the impracticality of alternatives, serious prospects of success, and—critically—proportionality so that the use of arms does not generate evils worse than those to be eliminated.
A clear way to distinguish the two is this:
Catholic teaching urges nations “to find more effective ways to prevent conflicts” and to resolve them by peaceful means, and also to promote reconstruction and reconciliation after conflict.
That does not mean the Church ignores threats; it means the Church insists that the moral horizon is peace-building: addressing roots of terror, insisting on ethical limits on force, rejecting torture, and emphasizing proportionate and restrained responses.
Catholic doctrine simultaneously affirms that in a tragic case of aggression, the attacked state has “the right and the duty to organize a defence even using the force of arms,” but only under strict conditions.
Pope Francis sharpens the point for legitimate authority: “Legitimate defense is not a right but a duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others,” and preserving the common good requires repelling aggression “to the extent necessary” to protect those entrusted to authority.
He also draws a boundary that helps distinguish genuine defense from morally illicit action: “Any use of deadly force which is not strictly necessary… can be regarded only as an illegal execution.”
The deepest distinction is also a deepest unity: even when the state must defend, Church teaching holds that states remain obligated to work so that real peace becomes possible.
The Compendium explicitly teaches that if defense is morally justified, states “still have the obligation to do everything possible ‘to ensure that the conditions of peace exist, not only within their own territory but throughout the world.’”
So the Church’s peace advocacy is not a replacement for security duties; it is the moral direction that judges and constrains them, and it demands that defense not become domination or an instrument of political/military objectives beyond the protection of the innocent.
The Church’s peace advocacy is especially forceful regarding weapons of mass destruction. The Holy See states that in a system of collective security, there is “no place for nuclear weapons,” and notes both the catastrophic humanitarian consequences and the risks even from accidents.
Likewise, recent Church statements reaffirm that “the use of nuclear weapons, as well as their mere possession, is immoral,” and that reliance on deterrence “poison[s] relationships” and blocks real dialogue.
Here the distinction matters: states may have security responsibilities, but Church teaching argues that nuclear weapons themselves undermine genuine peace and responsible security.
Church teaching recognizes that war brings severe harms and that the effort must be made to prevent it; yet it also affirms that governments possess a right to lawful self-defense in certain circumstances, grounded in just war teaching aimed at limiting war and governing how force may be used.
So “peace advocacy” means refusing indifference to war and prioritizing alternatives and moral limits—not treating all defense as illegitimate.
The Church’s peace advocacy emphasizes peace as an active moral construction—dialogue, justice, universal security, and (particularly for mass destruction) serious commitment to disarmament and arms control.
The state’s security duties emphasize the protection of the common good through morally acceptable authority, which can include legitimate defense—but only under strict moral conditions and ordered always toward creating the real conditions for peace.