Catholic teaching places peace as the objective of all nations and rulers, while also affirming that lawful self-defense can make the use of force morally permissible when war cannot be avoided. When it comes to targeting civilian infrastructure, the key moral question in the sources you provided is whether such attacks involve the intentional destruction of human life or the violation of others’ rights and obligations—because those are explicitly forbidden.

1) Peace is the Church’s demanding aim—not war’s “normal” instrument

The Catechism teaches that, because war brings “evils and injustices,” “we must do everything reasonably possible to avoid it,” and the Church prays for deliverance from war.1

Likewise, Pacem in Terris insists that the desire for security from war is not secondary but central: humans “crave” to be rid of “the threat of war” and to preserve peace.2 And Pope John XXIII states with special force that modern weapons change the moral landscape:

Finally, he summarizes the prudential stakes:

Implication for your topic: Any policy that treats war (and especially attacks that predictably harm civilians) as a workable tool conflicts with the Church’s insistence that war must be avoided as far as possible, and that peace is the overriding goal.1 2 4

2) Force is not absolutely excluded—self-defense can be licit when peace efforts fail

The Catechism affirms that governments have an obligation “to work for the avoidance of war.” However, it adds a condition: as long as there is no effective international authority and the danger persists, governments may have the right of “lawful self-defense” once all peace efforts have failed.5

Aquinas likewise teaches that war is not automatically sinful in itself. He explains that those who “wage war justly aim at peace,” and the moral orientation of a just war is that it seeks peace rather than an evil peace.6 He also states the classical requirements for “a just” war: legitimate authority, a just cause, and a right intention aiming at good/avoiding evil.7

Implication for your topic: Catholic teaching does not reduce everything to pacifism. But it makes force morally intelligible only within a framework where the aim is peace, the authority and intention are proper, and war is not pursued when peace has viable possibilities.5 6 7

3) The moral boundary: you may not intentionally destroy human life or violate the rights of others

Your question specifically concerns targeting civilian infrastructure. The sources you provided do not contain a detailed “infrastructure-by-infrastructure” rule, but they do provide decisive moral boundaries:

1. Intentional destruction of human life is forbidden.
   The Catechism states: “The fifth commandment forbids the intentional destruction of human life.”8

2. Even when using defense measures, you must safeguard the rights and obligations of others.
   The Catechism says that those who use defense to safeguard human rights “bear witness to evangelical charity,” but they must do so “provided they do so without harming the rights and obligations of other men and societies.”9

3. Recourse to violence is morally constrained by its grave risks.
   The Catechism urges “prayer and action” because war’s injustices are real; and it also highlights the “physical and moral risks of recourse to violence,” with “destruction and death.”10

Implication for your topic: If targeting civilian infrastructure is chosen with the intention of killing civilians or otherwise intentionally destroying human life, then it directly violates the Catechism’s prohibition.8 If it predictably and deliberately harms civilian persons and their rights (for example, by aiming to break civilian life-support in order to coerce compliance), it also runs against the Catechism’s requirement not to “harm the rights and obligations” of other societies and persons.9

4) Applying these principles to “civilian infrastructure” targeting (with an important limitation)

Because the specific category “civilian infrastructure” (power grids, water systems, hospitals, communications networks) is not directly treated in the sources you supplied, a fully determinate Catholic verdict on every conceivable scenario would require additional magisterial texts that you did not include (for example, more explicit just-war norms like discrimination and proportionality).

Still, applying the principles that are in your sources yields a clear baseline evaluation:

A. Intention matters most in your provided framework

• If an attack’s aim is to destroy human life, that is categorically forbidden.8
• If the attack’s aim is to safeguard one’s own defense without harming others’ rights, it can be assessed differently—but it must remain consistent with the Catechism’s limit.9

B. The Church expects extreme reluctance to war, especially given modern destructive capacity

John XXIII’s teaching about modern weapons makes it more difficult to justify war as a “fit instrument,” and he repeatedly stresses the superiority of peace.3 4 So policies that increase civilian suffering and life-threatening consequences are especially difficult to reconcile with the Church’s stated prudential and moral orientation.1 2 3 4

C. Therefore: “civilian infrastructure targeting” is morally perilous and often inconsistent with Catholic limits

On the logic of the Catechism passages you provided, many real-world “civilian infrastructure” targeting practices would be morally suspect because they are typically connected to:

• the risk (or intent) of civilian death and lethal harm, contradicting “intentional destruction of human life,”8
• and the harming of civilian rights and societal obligations, contradicting the requirement not to harm “rights and obligations of other men and societies.”9

5) A Catholic moral discernment lens you can use

When evaluating whether targeting civilian infrastructure is compatible with Catholic teaching (based on your sources), you can ask three questions:

1. Is war being avoided as much as reasonably possible?
   The Church insists on avoiding war and urges action and prayer to be freed from “the ancient bondage of war.”1

2. Has the resort to force become morally conditional on failed peace efforts and proper intent?
   Governments may have recourse to lawful self-defense only after peace efforts fail, and just war aims at peace.5 6

3. Does the plan involve intentional killing or deliberate disregard of others’ rights?
   The Catechism draws a non-negotiable line: intentional destruction of human life is forbidden, and defense must not harm others’ rights and obligations.8 9

If the answer to (3) is “yes,” Catholic teaching in your provided sources indicates the act is morally impermissible.8 9

Conclusion

Catholic teaching—at the level found in your provided texts—treats peace as the primary objective and war as something to be avoided whenever reasonably possible. Force may be licit in lawful self-defense after peace efforts fail and when the aim is peace. But in relation to targeting civilian infrastructure, the decisive moral boundary is whether such targeting entails the intentional destruction of human life or the violation of others’ rights and obligations. When it does, Catholic teaching rejects it.1 5 8 9