Pope Leo XIV seems like the proverbial ‘nice chap’ and, to a traditional Roman Catholic like myself, I consider that he is already doing a better job than his disastrous predecessor Pope Francis. He comports himself with dignity, seems to be approachable and has started to issue some statements about the appropriate conduct of the Novus Ordo Mass, where standards have long been slipping in many churches.
He is not, however, without his faults. Like Pope Francis he is capable of displaying the staggering hypocrisy inherent in pronouncements about welcoming strangers to our shores, not judging them and having open borders. Meantime, the doors and gates of the Vatican City remain firmly closed, even to Roman Catholics. They are guarded by well-trained Swiss soldiers sworn to protect the Pope until death. Don’t be fooled by the pantalooned young men with staffs and pikes in St Peter’s square. Within nodding distance sit heavily side and small-armed colleagues who may consign you to the ultimate seat of judgement if you try to enter the Vatican illegally.
And poor old Leo, early in his Papacy, dropped an enormous clanger when he blessed a lump of ice. Many excuses have been made for this such as him being heralded to it unexpectedly and having no choice. But it is unclear, even if he had not seen his itinerary, which of the following words ‘ice’, ‘blessing’, ‘you’re the Pope’ and ‘lump of’ needed to be rearranged to impress on him how ridiculous he was going to look. Also, in the name of saving the planet, the ice had been transported many carbon generating miles across land and sea to be placed where it was.
Leo speaks
But now, in the eyes of many commentators – including some good Catholic friends – he has committed the secular sin of appearing to be critical of Donald J Trump. Specifically, and it is old news by now, he made comments on the current Israeli-US war on Iran. He called for a halt to the bombing and for peace. All standard papal stuff, one would think. But it is almost as if he would have been expected to join in the enthusiasm, hyperbole and apocalyptic jingoism of Donald Trump and his immediate team of sycophants.
What did they expect Pope Leo to say? Something along the lines of ‘hit ‘em hard, boys, kill those Ayatollahs and f**k the Iranian people’? That would certainly have raised a few eyebrows amongst Roman Catholics but would have seen Pope Leo receive the ultimate ‘great guy’ accolade from The Donald. Trump has turned on Pope Leo in a most unseemly manner, firing off accusations that he likes nuclear weapons and crime.
Pope Leo’s detractors criticise him on several fronts. In common with Trump they reckon he should keep out of politics. Perhaps he should but, surely, on matters of death and destruction the head of the Roman Catholic Church should be permitted to speak. It remains hypothetical, but Pope Leo’s silence on the war against Iran would have been equally controversial, certainly among the faithful, and who knows if the Trumpeteers would not have criticised him for remaining silent and, seemingly, unsupportive.
A common theme, from Trump himself and those who write in his support over Iran, is that Pope Leo has not called out the Iranians. But it is hard to see the logic of why the Pope would address members of an Islamic theocracy; his job is with Christians, both Catholic and non-Catholic. It also seems to have slipped the notice of Pope Leo’s detractors that the US started this war, it is they who are bombing the Iranian mainland and that the drones and missiles set off in the direction of surrounding Sunni Muslim states such as Bahrain, Qatar and the UAE followed those initial attacks. Both the US and UK navies have bases in these places; what else did they expect?
The Iranian threat
Iran has nuclear weapons and has regularly threatened Armageddon. It certainly has threatened Armageddon (as has The Donald) but nuclear weapons, really? It may have, I am no expert, but then neither are many of the people criticising Pope Leo. It pays to remember Saddam Hussein’s stockpiles of nuclear weapons and other ‘weapons of mass destruction’ that we were so sure about in both the First (I am a veteran) and the Second Gulf Wars. That is, until we got in there and discovered he had none.
Like Saddam, the Iranians play cat and mouse with the international nuclear inspectors, which may not be the wisest thing. But then again, they seem to have little regard for the safety of their own population, and the leadership seems content to seek martyrdom. People with such a mentality are continually one step ahead of the West where we see such matters in perspective.
Just war theory
Into the debate over the propriety of Pope Leo’s remarks has waded famous theologian, scholar and neophyte Catholic JD Vance who has called for Pope Leo to be more ‘Augustinian’ in his approach to and comments about the war on Iran. ‘Augustinian’ because St Augustine put quill to papyrus first on the concept of a just war, later expressed more fully by St Thomas Aquinas. Vance’s comments can be interpreted as ‘please say something else, something that supports what we are doing’ almost in the expectation that throwing some cod theology at Leo will make him see the error of his ways and change his mind.
Just war theory is a contested area and I am no expert. But surely, if the Pope considers the current war to be unjust (I am open to the possibility that he may be wrong, in the hope that some of his detractors may be open to the possibility that he may be right) then what should he do, stay silent?
A new kid on the block of arguments around just war theory has appeared and that is that it is not for religious leaders to pronounce on it; it is a set of principles for political leaders to consider before waging war. And when in recent times, from Blair through Bush to Johnson and Netanyahu and Trump has a political leader not taken the opportunity to wage war? This argument seems like poppycock.
But back to Pope Leo. Sadly, he has responded to Trump’s criticism and defended himself. He even said that he would not take up Trump’s invitation to debate him on the issue. Far be it from me to advise the Pope – but, just in case he reads this – time to ‘zip it’ Leo, you do not need to defend yourself and the best way to respond to Trump’s debate invitation would have been to treat it with the contempt it (and he) deserves. Actions and silence speak so much louder than words.
Is it a just war?
We can argue around the theory, interpretations and who may pronounce and decide on the implementation of a just war. But a fact remains regarding the theory and those who formulated it; in those days men met face to face on the field of battle and fought it out to the last man with swords and spears. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t think that either Augustine or Aquinas had ICBMs, drones, airburst incendiaries or nuclear weapons in mind. Civilian deaths were not unknown in ancient times – witness the Mongols and the Islamic army that took Mecca (sorry Makkah) or read the Old Testament. But the just war theory of Augustine and Aquinas was designed to limit warfare and, certainly, to limit non-combatant death. Another fact to consider; we’re a long way from all that.
Admittedly, the Iranian regime is not nice. Witness the fatwa on Rushdie, which only boosted sales of one of the worst books I’ve read, and how long memories in that regard led to his current disabled state. They fund international Islamic terrorism, and we know that because they tell us they do. They fund Hamas (which at least saves the Israelis the cost, after all, they established Hamas) and Hezbollah. But while these organisations rain down hell from time to time on innocent Israelis, I cannot recall the last time they rained down hell on either the UK or the USA. I am not sure if there is a clause in the just war theory to the effect that countries should not become involved in wars that do not concern them; if not, could I propose an amendment?
Roger Watson is a retired academic nurse who lives in the UK.
He is currently engaged in a range of professional consultancies in the UK, Europe and China. He writes regularly for several outlets including The Daily Sceptic, The European Conservative, Country Squire Magazine and The New Conservative.
