Theologians, retired commander reflect on just war at Catholic Military Conference
A few hundred service members and veterans attended the Catholic Military Conference in Chantilly, Virginia, organized by the Archdiocese for the Military Services, USA. Speakers stressed that war causes lasting harm and should be waged prudently, sparingly, and only as a last resort. The conference reviewed Catholic just war criteria, including confronting grave evil, exhausting alternatives, limiting harm, and having a reasonable chance of success. Theologians said military decisions must be guided by moral principles rather than realpolitik, and Archbishop Timothy Broglio discussed applying just war teaching to the conflict with Iran.
20 hours ago
A Catholic military conference in Virginia brought together service members, veterans, theologians and church leaders to discuss just war teaching and the duties of military personnel. Speakers stressed that war causes lasting harm and should be avoided where possible; Archbishop Timothy Broglio applied that principle to the U.S.-Iran conflict, urging dialogue and protection of civilians. 1
The Archdiocese for the Military Services, USA, held the conference in Chantilly from Nov. 9–11. Its program included talks and panels on just war doctrine and the responsibilities of Catholic soldiers, with Archbishop Broglio, theologians Joseph E. Capizzi and Matthew Bunson, and military veterans among the speakers. 1
The article summarizes Catholic teaching as permitting war only to confront a grave evil, when the harm caused by the war would not exceed the harm it seeks to stop, alternatives have been exhausted, and success is realistically possible. Speakers emphasized that political leaders have a duty to meet these conditions and avoid war when possible. 1
Retired Lt. Gen. James M. Dubik, a veteran of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, described war as involving the deaths of combatants and civilians, as well as damage to individuals, relationships, communities and nations. He said even justified military action can leave lasting harm, and argued that wars must be waged prudently, sparingly and as a last resort. 1
Capizzi said just war doctrine offers moral guidance to political leaders and stands against treating war solely as a matter of strategy, or “realpolitik.” Referring to St. Augustine’s letter to the Roman general Boniface, he said war should not be pursued for its own sake or driven by vengeance, wealth or glory, but should serve justice and the community. 1
While conference speakers generally avoided judging the ongoing war with Iran, Broglio addressed the conflict’s application of just war principles. After President Donald Trump said escalation was unlikely but warned of further attacks if no agreement was reached, Broglio urged the United States and Iran to pursue dialogue and said war should remain the last option. 1
Broglio also cautioned against attacks on infrastructure that supports both an enemy’s defenses and civilian life. He said civilian harm should be avoided and that the dignity and safety of innocent people must remain central to decisions; if escalation occurs, he said, harm to civilians should be kept as limited as possible. 1*
Catholic moral theology constrains the use of military force
Catholic moral theology does not treat military force as automatically legitimate merely because a government declares a just cause. It permits force only under stringent conditions of legitimate defense, and it also limits how force may be used once fighting begins. The central moral concern is protection of people and the common good—not revenge, conquest, or the pursuit of advantage.
The Catechism presents four conditions that must be met together:
The damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain; all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective; there must be serious prospects of success; the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.
These conditions make a decision to use military force a demanding moral judgment. The threat must be real and serious, rather than speculative; peaceful alternatives must have been seriously considered; military action must have a reasonable chance of achieving its protective purpose; and the harm caused by the response must not outweigh the harm it is meant to prevent. The Catechism emphasizes that assessing these conditions belongs to the prudential judgment of those responsible for the common good—but prudential judgment means applying moral principles to concrete circumstances, not treating the decision as morally unrestricted.
Thus, “last resort” does not mean that every imaginable diplomatic possibility must be pursued while people face imminent danger. A Catholic moral theologian in the supplied scholarly discussion cautions that authorities must make use of realistic alternatives, without allowing delay to become a device that prevents them from protecting those in their care. That is a prudential argument about applying the condition, not a permission to bypass it.
Even if the decision to use force is justified, particular actions in war remain subject to moral limits. The U.S. bishops state that military force must not be indiscriminate or disproportionate and that direct, intentional attacks on noncombatants are never morally acceptable. They also condemn weapons or methods that cannot distinguish civilians from soldiers.
This means that a just cause does not make every means acceptable. A state cannot claim that because it is defending itself, it may deliberately target civilians, inflict unlimited destruction, or ignore the scale and likely consequences of its actions. The moral evaluation of whether to resort to force and the evaluation of how force is used are related but distinct: satisfying the first set of conditions does not remove the second set of obligations. The bishops’ insistence on discrimination and proportionality illustrates that restraint applies throughout a conflict, not only at the moment it begins.
The Catechism specifically warns that the destructive power of modern weapons weighs heavily in judging whether military action would cause evils greater than the evil being resisted. The bishops likewise identify weapons of mass destruction and other means that cannot distinguish between civilians and combatants as fundamentally immoral.
The Ukrainian Catholic Catechism expresses the resulting concern in especially stark terms: military force can be justified only in extreme necessity as legitimate self-defense, while modern methods of warfare make the just launching of war practically difficult because of their threat to humanity. This underscores a serious tension: the moral duty to protect people from aggression remains, but the scale and indiscriminate character of available weapons can make it extraordinarily difficult to use force without causing catastrophic harm.
Catholic writers and church documents may emphasize different starting points. One scholarly account describes the U.S. bishops’ teaching as placing a “presumption against war” at the beginning of just-war reasoning. Another argues that the doctrine should not be read as a presumption that every use of force is wrong, stressing instead the responsibility of public authority to protect people and the common good.
That difference in emphasis does not erase the Catechism’s requirements. Whether one stresses a presumption against war or the duty of legitimate defense, military force must still meet the specified conditions, and its conduct must remain morally limited. The scholarly discussion also recognizes that protection may sometimes require force when an aggressor threatens innocent people and peaceful efforts have failed, while insisting that such force be necessary, carefully directed, and proportionate.
The practical conclusion is that Catholic moral theology neither blesses warfare as an ordinary instrument of policy nor rules out every use of armed force. It treats force as a grave and constrained means of defense: potentially permissible when necessary to protect people from serious aggression, but never exempt from moral scrutiny. The supplied U.S. bishops’ text also recognizes a moral right to conscientious objection to war in general, to a particular war, or to a particular military procedure.