Castel Gandolfo - As he left Castel Gandolfo this evening, Leo XIV spoke in very firm terms about the risk of a further escalation against Iran. “Today, as we all know, a threat has been made that affects the entire Iranian people. This is unacceptable. What is at stake involves questions of international law, but קודםall a grave moral question concerning the good of an entire people. I invite everyone to think of the many innocent people, the children, the elderly, who would be the first victims of an escalation and of war. We must return to dialogue and negotiation. We must seek ways of resolving problems before reaching this point. We need to pray very much, but also to make our voice heard clearly: we do not want war, we want peace.”
The Pope’s words came in the very same hours that Archbishop Paul S. Coakley, President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, issued a direct appeal to Donald Trump, asking him to step back “from the brink of war” and to open the way to a negotiation capable of leading to a just solution. Coakley spoke with particular clarity about the moral responsibility borne by those who wield political and military power, stating that “the threat to destroy an entire civilisation and the deliberate attack on civilian infrastructure cannot be morally justified”, and recalling that there are other ways to resolve conflicts between peoples.
This communications strategy says a great deal about the pontificate of Leo XIV. The Pope avoids overshadowing the pastors who live in territories wounded by conflict, who hear the suffering of the people at first hand and receive their cry. He chose to give journalists a precise message, limiting himself to those words and immediately making clear that he would not answer any further questions. This detail too reveals a method: no improvisation; the Pope does not lend himself to manipulation by journalists, but chooses a clear and recognisable shared line. It is clear that Leo XIV is in dialogue with the American episcopate, that he follows its public positions, encourages it to intervene publicly, and moves in harmony with it, so that a united ecclesial voice may perhaps have an effect on the public debate. For months, Prevost has insisted on the need to return to treaties, international law, negotiation, and to a moral standard that seems increasingly to have been lost. The issue, then, is not any lack of a word from the Pope or from the Church. The issue is rather the attitude of those Catholics who profess to be such, who take part in public battles over life, and then completely ignore what the Pope says when he calls for peace, responsibility, and the moral limits of political action. And, without dancing around the point, among these emblematic cases is also that of JD Vance.
Fr.S.N.
Silere non possum