“Just War” and Catholic Indefectibility: Another Stage of the Modernist Revolution

In declaring the theory of just war outdated, The Imitator of Leo, Prevost, takes the modernist aggiornamento agenda of revising perennial Catholic doctrines to a foreseen and logical stage… 

Prologue: Continuing Bergoglio’s Mandate

When Bergoglio was the Modernist-in-chief, he approved the following doctrine on capital punishment. 

“the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person” ( 2018 revision of the so-called Catechism of the Catholic Church §2267)

He then said:

“the Church works with determination for its abolition worldwide.”  

He also stated in a 2017 address:

“The death penalty is, in itself, contrary to the Gospel.”  

To-day his successor in the modernist apostate apostolicity continues his mandate in his first pretended encyclical letter and affirms:

“Today, more than ever, without prejudice to the right to self-defense in the strictest sense, it is important to reaffirm that the “just war” theory, which has all too often been used to justify any kind of war, is now outdated. Humanity possesses far more effective and capable tools for promoting human life and resolving conflicts, such as dialogue, diplomacy and forgiveness. The use of force, violence and weapons reflects a relational poverty that always has disastrous consequences for civilian populations.” (Magnifica Humanitas, no. 192) 

In these two instances we see not merely prudential opinions but a resolute revision of perennial Catholic doctrines according to the spirit of the age. 

We have addressed the question of Capital Punishment in the past here and here. In the present our focus is on the declaration that the principle of  just war is outdated.

Now, Catholics certainly abhor war. The Church has always prayed for peace, praised peacemakers, and condemned unjust aggression, cruelty, and bloodshed. But she has never taught absolute pacifism. Rather, she has consistently maintained that under certain grave conditions, the use of armed force may be not only lawful, but morally obligatory.

To affirm  that the doctrine itself is “outdated” is to say that the Church taught an obsolete moral principle for nearly two millennia; an implication impossible to reconcile with Catholic indefectibility and the immutability of moral doctrine. 

Think on this:

If the Church could teach the moral legitimacy of just war for nearly two thousand years and later declare the doctrine itself obsolete, in what meaningful sense could her moral teaching be said to be indefectible?

The Traditional Catholic Doctrine

The doctrine of just war is rooted in Sacred Scripture, natural law, and the unanimous teaching of Catholic tradition.

Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas Aquinas articulated the classical principles:

• lawful authority,
• just cause,
• right intention,
• proportionality,
• and necessity.

The Church never glorified war. She tolerated it as a tragic but sometimes necessary means of defending justice, protecting the innocent, restoring order, and resisting grave evil.

Saint Thomas Aquinas teaches:

“In order for a war to be just, three things are necessary.

First, the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged. For it is not the business of a private individual to declare war…

Secondly, a just cause is required, namely that those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault.

Wherefore Augustine says: ‘A just war is wont to be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly.’

Thirdly, it is necessary that the belligerents should have a rightful intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil.

Hence Augustine says: ‘True religion looks upon as peaceful those wars that are waged not for motives of aggrandizement, or cruelty, but with the object of securing peace, of punishing evil-doers, and of uplifting the good.’” (Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 40, a. 1)

Likewise, the Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent recognizes the legitimacy of warfare undertaken by lawful authority for the defense of the common good.

The text explaining the fifth commandment  under the subsection “Killing in a just war” reads:

“In like manner, the soldier is guiltless who, actuated not by motives of ambition or cruelty, but by a pure desire of serving the interests of his country, takes away the life of an enemy in a just war.” 

This doctrine belongs not to a passing political arrangement, but to the permanent principles of natural law. Human nature has not changed. Nations still aggress. Innocents still require defense. Evil men still wage unjust violence. Therefore the moral principles governing legitimate defense remain necessary.

The same section of the Roman Catechism also states:

“Again, this prohibition does not apply to the civil magistrate, to whom is intrusted power of life and death…” 

And:

“The use of the civil sword, when wielded by the hand of justice, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this commandment which prohibits murder.”

Thus the Roman Catechism explicitly recognizes:

• legitimate capital punishment,
• legitimate self-defense,
• and legitimate participation in a just war under lawful authority.

False Opposition Between Peace and Force

The statement opposes “dialogue, diplomacy and forgiveness” to “force, violence and weapons,” as though every use of force were necessarily contrary to charity.

This is a false moral simplification.

A father who violently restrains a murderer attacking his family does not lack charity. A nation defending its citizens against invasion does not thereby reject peace. Sometimes force is precisely what protects the innocent from greater violence.

The Church has always distinguished:

• unjust violence from legitimate defense,
• aggression from protection,
• cruelty from justice.

The refusal to make these distinctions produces moral confusion.

Indeed, if all armed force reflects merely a “relational poverty,” then one must logically condemn:

• Catholic historic resistance to Islamic invasions,
• the defense of Christendom at Lepanto,
• the suppression of violent rebellion,
• and even resistance against genocidal tyrannies.

Such conclusions contradict both Catholic history and Catholic moral theology.

Retaining the Fruit While Discarding the Tree

Notice that the statement begins with a reassuring qualification:

“Without prejudice to the right to self-defense in the strictest sense…”

In other words, the right of self-defense is supposedly preserved. Certainly deluded modernist enthusiasts would hold unto this for a line of defense.

Yet what follows?

“The ‘just war’ theory … is now outdated.”

Here their hopeful bubbles break. 

The Church’s doctrine of just war was never a permission slip for violence. It was the very framework by which the moral legitimacy of armed self-defense was explained, regulated, and restricted. It established 

• when force could be used, 
• by whom, 
• for what reasons, 
• and under what conditions.

The doctrine exists precisely to safeguard the right being affirmed.

To retain the right of self-defense while declaring the just war doctrine outdated is therefore to retain the fruit while discarding the tree. Let that sink in deeply… 

One cannot coherently affirm the moral legitimacy of armed defense while simultaneously dismissing the traditional doctrine that defines and governs that legitimacy.

The Church has never taught that every war is just. Quite the contrary. She has always taught that only under strict conditions may force be employed. Those conditions are what constitute the doctrine of just war.

Thus the question naturally arises: 

If the doctrine is outdated, by what principle is the remaining right of self-defense to be judged?

The traditional answer was clear: the doctrine of just war.

Remove the doctrine, and the asserted right is left hanging in mid-air, deprived of its theological foundation and moral boundaries. The fruit remains in the hand, but the tree that bore it has been cut down.

The image therefore presses a challenge: 

Can the fruit be securely retained after the tree that produced and sustained it has been cut down? 

If legitimate self-defense remains a moral good, then the principles that explain and govern that good can in no way be obsolete. Or can they?

Modern Warfare Does Not Abolish Moral Principles

It is true that modern weapons have made warfare vastly more destructive. Traditional theologians  would indeed recognize that many modern conflicts fail the conditions of a just war because of indiscriminate destruction and disproportionate civilian casualties.

But this does not abolish the doctrine itself.

The abuse of a principle does not invalidate the principle.

Men have abused:

• authority,
• marriage,
• property,
• and even religion.

Yet the Church does not therefore declare these realities “outdated.”

Likewise, some rulers have falsely invoked “just war” to justify aggression. But abuse proves corruption in men, not error in doctrine. It is that simple. 

Many today use similar faulty reasoning to declare religion obsolete and outdated. 

“Religion has been abused” they argue, “Therefore, religion is outdated”.

It is easy to see that the conclusion does not follow from the premise.

The abuse of a principle proves only that men can misuse it; it does not prove the principle itself is false, obsolete, or immoral.

If one says:

“The just war doctrine has been used to justify many unjust wars; therefore the doctrine is outdated,”

then one must also accept:

“Religion has been used to justify persecution, fanaticism, and violence; therefore religion is outdated.”

Inasmuch as modernism, following the path begun by Protestantism, leads ultimately to the destruction of all religion and headlong to atheism, the Imitator of Leo is not at this moment ready yet to concede that religion is outdated. Or is he? Well, on the same note he couldn’t possibly concede that the principle of just war is now outdated. But it is understandable that consistency is not strong point for modernists except in being inconsistent. 

The Modernist Tendency: Revising Doctrine with the Times

Noteworthy is that this statement from the Imitator of Leo reflects a broader modernist tendency: the gradual replacement of immutable Catholic doctrine with evolving humanitarian sentiment.

Under the influence of modern personalism and secular globalism, perennial teachings are  presented not as fixed truths to be preserved, but as ideas to be “updated” according to contemporary sensitivities.

The pattern is unmistakable.

Yesterday, under Bergoglio, the perennial legitimacy of capital punishment was publicly undermined and effectively condemned, despite:

• Sacred Scripture affirming the sword of lawful authority,
• the unanimous tradition of the Fathers,
• the teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas,
• and repeated magisterial affirmations across centuries.

Now the same process is applied to the doctrine of just war.

The method is familiar:

1. First, acknowledge the traditional doctrine verbally.
2. Then declare modern circumstances have rendered it practically unacceptable.
3. Finally, speak as though the doctrine itself belongs to a morally inferior past.

But Catholic doctrine does not evolve into its contradiction.

If the Church could once teach as morally legitimate what is now declared morally obsolete, then moral theology becomes historically relative rather than divinely grounded.

That is precisely the danger against which Pope Saint Pius X warned in Pascendi Dominici Gregis: 

The modernist reduces doctrine to changing religious sentiment shaped by the spirit of the age.

Summing Up: True Catholic Peace and Sede Vacante

The Church seeks peace; but true peace.

Not the peace of sentimental disarmament, nor the peace purchased by surrender to evil, but the peace defined by Saint Augustine as the “tranquility of order.”

There can be no true peace where:

• the innocent are abandoned,
• justice is denied,
• lawful authority is paralyzed,
• or evil is permitted to ravage unchecked.

A Christian may legitimately prefer diplomatic solutions wherever possible. He may prudently judge many modern wars unjust. He may mourn the horrors of armed conflict.

But he cannot declare the perennial Catholic doctrine of just war “outdated” without undermining the consistency and permanence of Catholic moral teaching itself.

The Catholic Faith is not rewritten by modern anxieties. Truth does not expire with the centuries.

Lest it be forgotten, the person declaring a perennial Catholic doctrine outdated is a papal claimant. He is not merely expressing a personal opinion on contemporary geopolitics. He is positively asserting that what the Church once taught as morally true for all ages can cease to be true because of changing historical circumstances.

Yet Catholic doctrine is not a provisional policy subject to revision by successive pontiffs. 

The doctrine of just war was not invented by medieval theologians. It belongs to the ordinary and universal teaching of the Church regarding the moral legitimacy of armed defense under certain conditions.

Therefore, when a papal claimant describes the just war doctrine itself as “outdated,” he obviously places himself in opposition to the Church’s perennial teaching tradition. 

The question that naturally follows is profound: 

If the holder of the papal office can publicly repudiate what the Church has always taught, by what principle can he still be regarded as a true guardian of that tradition?

Obviously, this is not merely an isolated doctrinal difficulty. It is one more manifestation of a deeper crisis: 

the clear contradiction between the indefectibility of the Catholic Church and the repeated promotion of teachings that are  incompatible with her perennial magisterium. 

Thus, such statements are evidence that the said  claimants to the papacy lack the authority they profess to possess. 

Yes. The Church seeks peace; but true peace. And true peace can never be built upon the abandonment of truth, for Christ did not promise that His doctrine would evolve with the ages, but that His words would never pass away. Think on it!