A war of words.

President Trump and Pope Leo XIV are in a war of words over the war in Iran. It’s the most open dispute between an American president and a Roman pontiff that anyone can remember.

Without calling him by name, the pope has been sharply critical of Trump. While on a visit to Cameroon the pope spoke of a world, “ravaged by a handful of tyrants.” The statement is widely believed to be specifically referencing the president.

In a social media post, the pope said, “God does not bless any conflict.” Immediately following the beginning of hostilities on February 28, the pope said that peace comes, “…not through weapons but through dialogue.”

For his part the president has specifically named the pope in his responses. In trademark fashion, he has pushed back hard on the pontiff, saying in a Truth Social post, “Pope LEO is WEAK on crime and terrible for Foreign Policy.”

The pope’s defenders – which includes what is likely a majority of U.S. Catholic bishops – are saying that Pope Leo’s criticism of the Iran war is nothing more or less than the sum of Catholic teaching about war.

I believe that position deserves closer examination.

Such examination begins with the stipulation that a Roman pontiff is going to condemn war. That should surprise no one. But such condemnation then begs the question, “Where has Pope Leo so outspokenly condemned the known atrocities of the Iranian regime?” Oh, he frequently calls for respect for human dignity and fundamental human rights; i.e. papal boilerplate – the rhetoric of every pope.

But if Leo has as pointedly called out Iran as he has the United States and Donald Trump, I can’t find it (and neither can ChatGPT, because I asked when I could find nothing on my own).

As to the pope’s condemnation being consistent with Catholic teaching regarding war, let’s examine the writings of revered Catholic theologian and priest, St. Thomas Aquinas. In his late 13^th century opus Summa Theologica, Thomas says that war is justified when it is waged by a sovereign nation in defense of a common good and when the good intended outweighs the evil of war.

With respect to the war in Iran, I’d say check, check and check.

The U.S. is preventing nuclear weapons from coming into the hands of a nation that is openly relentless in its pursuit of having them. Preventing a regime like that of Iran, with its clear and undisputed record of terrorism, mass murder and evil from ever having nuclear weapons, is to my eye, a rather straightforward exercise in the defense of a common good.

As to peace coming via dialogue rather than weapons, the president tried that. It went nowhere. U.S./Iranian dialogue accomplished nothing other than to provide the forum for Iran to proudly and unapologetically boast of its possession of about a thousand pounds of uranium that could be enriched to weapons grade in less than two weeks.

And finally, there’s this.

Dialogue did not save the world from the evils of Adolf Hitler. That effort required weapons.