this post was submitted on 18 Apr 2026
83 points (100.0% liked)

World News

55529 readers
2069 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world

Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
NewsAutoMod@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
lemmyAtom@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
83
‘Popesplaining’ Vance out of depth in argument over whether Iran is a just war (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world
9 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Trump administration has riled head of Catholic church over use of theology to justify conflict in Iran

The contrast in experience between the two men disagreeing over war and theology was striking.

On the one side was Pope Leo XIV, the first North American to head the Catholic church and the first cleric from the Augustinian order, who this week visited the modern Algerian city where Saint Augustine once lived. For Leo, who wrote his doctoral thesis on Augustine’s ideas, it was the culmination of a lifelong intellectual interest.

On the other, the US vice-president, JD Vance, a very recent adult convert to Catholicism with no academic background in the history of the church’s thinking.

top 9 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] emmanuelw@jlai.lu 1 points 21 minutes ago

Theologian here, although not Catholic.

We could see this debate as the Catholic church being more progressive than the US and in part it's true. But it's a quite conservative view within the Catholic tradition: in the beginning of Christianity, all violence were deemed unjust, and people preferred to die than to be violent. Then Augustine and others theorized the just war, which is the base of the international war law. But in the 20^th century, the Catholic church evolved on the subject, stating again that all war were unjust:

  • Any apotheosis of war is to be condemned as an aberration of mind and heart. (Pope Pius 12, 1953)
  • It becomes impossible to believe that war is the appropriate means to obtain justice for a violation of rights. (Pope John 23)
  • There is no just war (Pope Francis, 2022)

The current version of The Catechism of the Catholic Church never use the expression “just war”, and justifies only violence in case of defense.

So the fact that the pope is arguing about just war is not the church being progressive, but being in fact fusty according to its own tradition. I think the definition the pope has to just war is not the Augustinian one, but one that limit war to defense, so the difference between him and Francis on the ideas is in fact non-existent, but the usage of the expression is by itself a defeat.

[–] ViatorOmnium@piefed.social 1 points 46 minutes ago

Apparently only atheists read the catechism these days:

2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. the gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time: - 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. the power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

Vance's war of choice meets none of the criteria. There was no certain damage (Iran has been "Two Months Away"™ from having nukes for 20 years, and even if they had them doesn't mean they would use them), negotiations were still officially ongoing, they went without even having concrete goals let alone a plan to end the war, and then started by bombing a school.

[–] Stern@lemmy.world 5 points 2 hours ago

Does he think that if he can arrange a meeting and debate with this one he'll die too?

[–] Gsus4@mander.xyz -4 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (3 children)

I still don't get why Pakistan/China/russia/India nearby are so chill with Iran having nukes if they really were going towards that...

[–] PalmTreeIsBestTree@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

For one, all these countries have their own nukes which cancels out their nukes. Ever heard of MAD?? Also, Russia is a close ally with Iran and that alone makes them very chill with each other.

[–] clutchtwopointzero@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

People nowadays really don't read enough to understand the world

[–] MousePotatoDoesStuff@lemmy.world 3 points 2 hours ago

Just nowadays?

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Tell us you don’t understand modern geopolitics without telling us you don’t understand modern geopolitics

[–] MousePotatoDoesStuff@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago

Well, they did say they don't get it.