Does Just War Doctrine Require Moral Certainty?

According to Edward Feser in an essay in First Things, the answer to the question "Does just war doctrine require moral certainty?" is yes. 

Feser's essay concludes with this paragraph:

Thus does the tradition require moral certainty if a war is going to be just. Those who admit that the case for the Iran war is problematic are wrong to conclude that Catholics can legitimately disagree over the matter, or that we should suspend judgment. If the war does not meet the standard of moral certainty, then we can be certain that we must oppose it.

Here is an excerpt from earlier in the essay:

Exactly what degree of certainty is required, and why does the tradition require it? Both questions are best answered by way of stock examples. Suppose a hunter considers firing into some bushes. On standard natural law thinking, he may do so only if he is certain there is no other hunter behind them. If he considers it merely probable that there is no one behind them and fires anyway, he is guilty of wrongdoing, even if he doesn’t hit anyone. For his action was reckless. Or consider a jury deciding whether to sentence an accused murderer to be executed. They may not do so if they think it merely probable that he is guilty (as opposed to being certain “beyond a reasonable doubt” that he is guilty). For to leave open the serious possibility of executing an innocent man would be a grave injustice, just as the murder itself is.

This is the degree of certainty that the tradition says governing authorities must have about the justice of a war before initiating it. The reason should be obvious. If it is gravely immoral to risk killing a fellow hunter or a person wrongly accused of a crime, then it is even more gravely immoral to enter into a war that is, at best, only arguably just.

To forestall misunderstandings, note that the claim is not that governing authorities must have absolute or metaphysical certainty (of the kind we have when we know, for example, that 1 + 1 = 2). Nor does the tradition claim that we need to have certainty about every aspect of a war. We need to be morally certain only that a proposed war meets all just war criteria (just cause, lawful authority, right intention, right means, and so on). For example, one of the criteria of a just war is that “there must be serious prospects of success” (as the Catechism puts it). Hence, governing authorities don’t need to be certain of the success. However, they do need to be certain that there are serious prospects of success.

 

Bishop Barron on Just War

This is a paragraph from a post by Bishop Barron on X:

The role of the Church, therefore, is to call for peace and to urge that any conflict be strictly circumscribed by the moral constraints of the just war criteria. But it is not the role of the Church to evaluate whether a particular war is just or unjust. That appraisal belongs to the civil authorities, who, one presumes, have requisite knowledge of conditions on the ground. So, is the war in question truly the last resort? Is there really a balance between the good to be attained and the destruction caused by the war? Are combatants and non-combatants being properly distinguished in the waging of the conflict? Do the belligerents have right intention? Is there a reasonable hope of success? The posing of those questions—indeed the insistence upon their moral relevance—belongs rightly to the Church, but the answering of them belongs to the civil authorities.

Aren't the passages I have boldfaced just another way of saying the pope should stay out of politics?  Even if the American and Israeli administrations have a plausible case to make that the war against Iran is a just war, is Bishop Barron saying there may never be a war that it is so obviously not just that the pope can't say so? Who among the civil authorities responsible for waging war are going declare that the war they are responsible for is unjust?

"What would you give up to make American healthcare better?"

 There was a thought provoking article on Bulwark this morning by Ezekiel Emanuel: What Would You Give Up to Make American Health Care Better?

It is thought provoking in the sense of things to think about, but not really tackling the big problems. A few things I would be on board with, and a lot of things I wouldn't be.  

From the article:

Great NCR Article on the Imprecatory Psalms

Saint Augustine is Key to the Difference between Pete Hegseth and Pope Leo  

In the aftermath of U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's recent Pentagon prayer and Pope Leo XIV's Palm Sunday homily, much of the public commentary has settled into a familiar framework. A conservative official invoked God in the context of war and a supposedly liberal pope rebuked him. The exchange is then cast as a political disagreement, or at most as an instance of religion being deployed on both sides of a geopolitical conflict.

This account is inadequate. What is unfolding is not a political dispute but a theological one, and its terms are ancient, not modern. In order to understand the public dialogue taking place between Hegseth and Leo, we need to turn to St. Augustine.

The first Christian community and its holy habits

This is my homily for yesterday, April 12, 2026, the 2nd week of Easter, Cycle A.  Yesterday's readings are here.  

Yesterday also was Divine Mercy Sunday.  I have to confess, I've never quite glommed onto Divine Mercy Sunday.  Part of it is that I've never been a follower of St. Faustina, have only experienced the Chaplet of Divine Mercy once or twice and have never adopted it as a spiritual practice.  Deacons preach on this Sunday fairly frequently (I think pastors want to give themselves a week off after the intensive homilizing during the Triduum), and I'd expect quite a few of them consciously try to incorporate Divine Mercy into their homilies.  Just speaking for myself, I've never found myself led down this road.  I tend to think of this Sunday more as the culmination of the Octave of Easter.  Not sure whether this is the Holy Spirit or my own intransigence.  Perhaps a bit of both.

At any rate, here is my homily:

Prayer Vigil for Peace

Here is a link for the prayer vigil for peace, led by Pope Leo XIV at the Vatican this morning:  

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ef4aM7nfNBc

Actually it wasn't morning in Rome, it was 7:00 in the evening there. We caught it at 11:00 am, CST. It lasted about an hour, and consisted of a rosary, and hymns, with some reflections from Scripture and writings of saints. It was  quite lovely; and appropriately, peaceful. Hopefully it will do some good.

"Fear isn't theology"

Every so often deacons and priests get blessed by unsolicited publications showing up in their parish mailbox.  Usually is from some fringey right-wing group, and in our case, gets tossed in the recycle basket.

There is an interesting article in National Catholic Reporter today about the latest one. The author of the article is Bishop Peter Dai Bui.  Fear is not theology: A bishop's response to the campaign against the synodal church | National Catholic Reporter

In this case the publication wasn't just a booklet, and was sent to bishops, not priests and deacons.  If they want it they'll have to pony up 25 bucks. I don't think many of them will want it.  Anyway, from the article: