Vincent Ryan RuggieroMark Levin, formerly a member of the Reagan administration and chief of staff to Attorney General Edwin Meese, is a television news analyst and author specializing in the U.S. Constitution. His analysis of President Trump’s handling of Iran was in response to Pope Leo’s statements on the subject. It is interesting for several reasons. Levin has no formal expertise in ethics, Judeo-Christian history, or the Bible, let alone Catholic Theology. In fact, he is not Catholic but Jewish! More interesting is that he draws his arguments from those sources. Most interesting is that the conclusion he derived from those sources is, by any fair measure, sounder than Pope Leo’s.
Here is what the Pope reportedly said:
“Brothers and sisters, this is our God: Jesus, Prince of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war. He does not listen to those who wage war, but rejects them.” And “Even though you make many prayers, I will not listen: your hands are full of blood.”
Associated Press, March 29
In response, Levin cited passages both from the Bible and the Catholic Catechism. First, the Bible.
. . . The Lord is a warrior; the Lord is his name . . . Lord will be at war against the Amalekites from generation to generation. Exodus: 15:3; 17:16
. . . The Lord said to Moses, “Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites. Numbers: 31-1-3
. . . There is a time for everything . . . a time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace. Ecclesiastes 3
. . . Defend the weak and the fatherless; uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed. Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked. Psalm: 82:3,4
. . . May he defend the afflicted among the people and save the children of the needy; may he crush the oppressor. Psalm: 72:4
. . . Rescue me, Lord, from evildoers; protect me from the violent,
who devise evil plans in their hearts and stir up war every day. Psalm 140:1-2
. . . Who will rise up for me against the wicked? Who will take a stand for me against evildoers? Psalm 94:16
. . . Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter. Proverbs: 25:11
Though the Old Testament spoke a lot about war, the New Testament differed. Jesus on occasion spoke prophetically about war and the need to protect oneself from it, but much more often about the importance of peace. This might seem to imply that all war is sinful, but that has not been the Christian view since the time of Christ, most significantly the view of the Catholic Church. Levin makes special note of this fact by citing numerous passages from the Catholic Catechism, as follows:
Where families cannot fulfill their responsibilities, other social bodies have the duty of helping them and of supporting the institution of the family. 2209
The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor . . . The one is intended, the other is not.” 2263, 2264
The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and the duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. 2266
All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war. However, “as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed.” 2308
“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: [2243 sic] [a] the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain; [b] all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective; [c] there must be serious prospects of success; [d] 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. These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good. [1897, sic] Public authorities, in this case, have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense.” 2309-2310
The four conditions of a “just war” shown above are drawn from St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), one of the most renowned Catholic scholars. The conditions are especially relevant to Trump’s war with Iran. Mark Levin agrees with St. Thomas and the other authors of the Catholic Catechism whereas Pope Leo clearly seems to ignore them.
It is true that Catholic Church has held different views of war over the centuries. For example, in the middle ages popes vigorously approved of the Crusades, while at that time St. Francis of Assisi chose dialogue with Muslims instead. It is also true that popes of modern times, including John Paul II and Benedict XVI, have condemned Crusade excesses and asked for the Church to be forgiven for supporting them. However, despite the Church’s changing views, St. Thomas’s teaching has remained the same over the centuries, shared by Catholic philosophers and theologians, and still emphasized in the Catholic Catechism. (See catholicshare.com/)
Given the complexity of the subject of a “just war,” the precision, balance, and longevity of Thomas’s teaching is without equal. And the fit of President Trump’s actions to Thomas’s standard is surely not accidental but inspired.
What can explain why Pope Leo and other members of the Catholic Hierarchy ignore both St. Thomas’s historic contribution to their own Catechism and Trump’s remarkable embrace of Thomas’s perspective? Certainly not the Hierarchy’s lack of theological training, or of a momentary forgetfulness of the Catechism. The only plausible explanation, I believe, is that they have chosen not to judge Trump by his “fruits,” as our Lord commanded, but instead by what Trump’s haters and detractors say of him. That choice will surely remain an embarrassment to the Catholic Church for generations.
Copyright © 2026 by Vincent Ryan Ruggiero. All rights reserved.
William Borst
