2026年4月18日T12:00:55.666Z / 美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）
扎卡里·B·沃尔夫分析
发布于 2026年4月18日，美国东部时间上午8:00
瓦希德·萨莱米/美联社
本文最初发表于CNN的《重要事项》新闻简报。如需免费订阅并将内容发送至您的邮箱，请点击此处。
唐纳德·特朗普总统与教皇之间离奇且大多单方面的争执，带来了一个有趣的结果：人们开始从天主教神学角度展开辩论，探讨美国与以色列对伊朗发动的战争是否属于“正义战争”。
无需重述特朗普直接攻击教皇利奥十四世的细节，以及利奥关于上帝是否聆听参战者祈祷的言论，简而言之，两人立场对立。
万斯引发讨论
“我欣赏教皇作为和平倡导者的身份，我认为这无疑是他的职责之一，”副总统JD·万斯本周在佐治亚大学举行的“转向点美国”活动上发表讲话时说道。
万斯没有攻击教皇，而是表示，他乐见教皇谈论“战争与和平议题”，因为“这至少能引发一场对话”。
这场对话来得有些滞后，因为美国并未公开宣战并争取国际支持，而是在核谈判仍在进行之际就对伊朗发动了袭击。
万斯是一名皈依天主教的信徒，即将出版一本关于其信仰历程的书。他去年曾与教皇利奥会面，并表示欣赏这位教皇。
但他在佐治亚大学的活动中也说道：“你怎么能说上帝永远不会站在挥舞刀剑的人一边？”“上帝曾站在将法国从纳粹手中解放的美国人一边吗？曾站在解放大屠杀集中营的美国人一边吗……？”
杰奎琳·马丁/泳池泳池/美联社
万斯在被一名听众质问时补充道：
“当教皇说上帝永远不会站在挥舞刀剑的人一边时——这背后有超过千年的正义战争理论传统，对吧？我们当然可以就某一场冲突是否正义展开争论，但我认为，这一点很重要，就像美国副总统在谈论公共政策时必须谨慎一样，我认为教皇在谈论神学议题时也必须非常、非常谨慎。”
万斯的这番话的后半部分——假定要告诫教皇谨慎谈论神学——遭到了批评，但我们需要结合完整语境来看待这一评论。
同样值得注意的是，正义战争理论在这千年间经历了诸多演变，但其源头可追溯至圣奥古斯丁。教皇利奥属于奥古斯丁修会，很可能对这一理论颇有了解。
其他共和党人也呼应了万斯关于正义战争理论的言论。
众议院议长迈克·约翰逊是一名福音派基督徒，他暗示对伊朗的战争是一场“正义战争”。
“这是基督教神学中早已明确的问题。有一个所谓的正义战争原则，”约翰逊说道。“天下万物皆有其时。我认为总统和副总统的言论反映了他们在敏感涉密区域（SCIF）和机密简报中深入了解到的我们所面临的极高风险。”
格雷姆·斯隆/Sipa USA/美联社
美国天主教主教会议对这场战争是否正义持有不同看法，并于周三发表声明澄清了教皇利奥的言论。
“一千多年来，天主教会一直传授正义战争理论，教皇在其关于战争的言论中谨慎提及的正是这一悠久传统，”主教会议的声明中写道。
主教会议补充道：
“这一千年传统的一个永恒原则是，一个国家只有‘在自卫，且所有和平努力均已失败’的情况下，才能合法地动用武力……也就是说，要成为一场正义战争，必须是针对主动发动战争的一方进行防御，这也是教皇实际所说的：‘他不会聆听那些发动战争者的祈祷。’”
特朗普政府刻意将美军与“防御”概念划清界限。他们将“战争部”作为五角大楼的第二名称，更换了标识和名片，以强调“作战”概念。
特朗普和国防部长兼二级头衔“战争部长”皮特·赫格斯表示，他们做出这一改变是为了回溯美国打赢战争的时代。
因此，他们使用美军的方式显然带有进攻性——换言之，与防御背道而驰。
“相称性”要求
CNN梵蒂冈通讯员克里斯托弗·兰姆曾撰文指出，首位美国教皇利奥越来越公开地谈论战争的危险。
他指出，梵蒂冈提到了正义战争理论的一个关键原则：“相称性”——即军事行动造成的破坏不得超过其意欲达成的良好结果。
芝加哥大主教布拉泽·卡皮奇红衣主教在接受CNN基督教·阿曼普尔采访时表示，听到万斯将美国参与二战与美以对伊朗的战争相提并论，令人有些震惊，他称这场战争是一场“选择发动的战争”。
当阿曼普尔问及对伊朗的战争是否为“正义战争”时，卡皮奇答道：“不，这并非正义之战。”
四项测试标准
美国天主教主教会议在声明中链接了《天主教教理》中关于“维护和平”的节选内容。节选内容列出了“正义战争教义”下“以武力进行合法防御”的四项条件：
- 侵略者对国家或国际社会造成的损害必须是持久、严重且确定无疑的；
- 所有其他制止侵略的手段都已被证明不切实际或无效；
- 必须存在取得成功的切实前景；
- 使用武力不得产生比所要消除的邪恶更严重的罪恶与混乱。在评估这一条件时，现代毁灭性武器的威力必须被重点考量。
大规模杀伤性武器时代的正义战争
卡皮奇援引了这些条件，他表示现代武器会以可怕的方式影响社会并危及平民。他还认为，特朗普政府并未明确其最终目标。
“我们看到人们对这场战争发表了诸多评论，但其目标并不明确，因为说法不断变化，”卡皮奇说道。
特朗普政府给出的这场战争最常见的理由是，旨在阻止伊朗获得核武器。伊朗则声称其核计划是和平的，仅用于核能发电。
法新社/盖蒂图片社
奥巴马在诺贝尔和平奖获奖感言中的定义
若想了解另一种关于“正义战争”构成要素的深刻观点，可以看看时任总统巴拉克·奥巴马在其总统任期第一年领取诺贝尔和平奖时，于挪威奥斯陆发表的演讲。
奥巴马阐述了世界秩序和战争法的重要性，而特朗普和赫格斯总体上拒绝这些概念。例如，赫格斯吹嘘自己废除了交战规则，以便更有效地开展战争。特朗普曾多次抱怨联合国，并威胁要让美国退出北约。
奥巴马还表示，不应将宗教引入战争，这与援引《圣经》的赫格斯截然不同——赫格斯身上纹有与十字军东征相关的标志。
奥巴马：“……十字军的暴行有详实记载。但它们提醒我们，任何圣战都永远不可能是正义战争。因为如果你真的相信自己在执行神的旨意，那么就无需克制——无需放过孕妇、医护人员、红十字会工作人员，甚至是与你信仰相同的人。这种扭曲的宗教观不仅与和平理念背道而驰，我认为它也与信仰的初衷背道而驰——因为每一种主要宗教的核心原则都是，己所不欲，勿施于人。”
奥巴马还提到了在美军深陷伊拉克和阿富汗战争之际，以美军总司令身份领取该奖项的怪异之处。随着奥巴马在任期内频繁动用美军，并使用无人机击杀人员——批评人士称，此举未经正当法律程序——这种不一致性只会愈发尴尬。与此同时，他并未对伊朗开战，而是达成了一项遏制其核计划的协议。
When is a war a ‘just war’?
2026-04-18T12:00:55.666Z / CNN
Analysis by Zachary B. Wolf
PUBLISHED Apr 18, 2026, 8:00 AM ET
A bridge struck by US airstrikes is seen in the town of Karaj, west of Tehran, Iran, on April 3, 2026.
Vahid Salemi/AP
A version of this story appeared in CNN’s What Matters newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here.
An interesting result of President Donald Trump’s strange and mostly one-sided feud with the pope is that there is something of a debate, through the lens of Catholic theology, about whether the US and Israel’s war on Iran is a “just war.”
Without restating the minutiae of Trump’s direct attacks on Pope Leo XIV and Leo’s discussion of whether God listens to the prayers of those who make war, suffice to say they are at odds.
Vance invites a conversation
“I like that the pope is an advocate for peace, I think that’s certainly one of his roles,” said Vice President JD Vance during an appearance at a Turning Point USA event at the University of Georgia this week.
Rather than attacking the pope, Vance said that he likes for the pope to talk about “matters of war and peace” because “at the very least, it invites a conversation.”
It is an after-the-fact conversation because rather than make a public case for war and build international support, the US launched attacks on Iran while nuclear talks were ongoing.
Vance, a convert to Catholicism, has a book coming out on his faith journey. He also met last year with Pope Leo and said he likes the man.
But, “How can you say that God is never on the side of those who wield the sword?” Vance said at the University of Georgia event. “Was God on the side of the Americans who liberated France from the Nazis? Was God on the side of the Americans who liberated Holocaust camps… ?”
Vice President JD Vance speaks during a news conference after meeting with representatives from Pakistan and Iran on Sunday, April 12, 2026, in Islamabad, Pakistan.
Jacquelyn Martin/Pool/AP
Vance, in between being heckled by an audience member, added this:
“When the pope says that God is never on the side of those who wield the sword — there is more than a thousand-year tradition of just war theory, OK? Now we can of course have disagreements about whether this or that conflict is just, but I think that it’s important in the same way that it’s important for the vice president of the United States to be careful when I talk about matters of public policy, I think it’s very, very important for the pope to be careful when he talks about matters of theology.”
Vance has been criticized for the last part of that quote — presuming to tell a pope to be careful about theology — but the comment needs its full context.
It’s also worth noting here that the concept of just war theory has undergone a lot of changes in the intervening thousand years, but it traces back to St. Augustine. Pope Leo comes from the Augustinian order and likely knows a bit about this.
Other Republicans have echoed what Vance said about just war theory.
House Speaker Mike Johnson, an evangelical Christian, implied the war on Iran is a “just war.”
“It is a very well-settled matter of Christian theology. There’s something called the just war doctrine,” Johnson said. “There’s a time to every purpose under heaven. I think what the president’s comments, what the vice president’s comments, reflect is their understanding, deep in the SCIF and the classified briefings, of the stakes that are so high in the situation that we’re facing,” Johnson said.
House Speaker Mike Johnson walks to the House Chamber at the US Capitol on April 15, 2026.
Graeme Sloan/Sipa USA/AP
The US Conference of Catholic Bishops takes a different view of whether the war is just, and it issued a clarification of Pope Leo’s comments Wednesday.
“For over a thousand years, the Catholic Church has taught just war theory, and it is that long tradition the Holy Father carefully references in his comments on war,” according to the bishops’ statement.
The bishops added:
“A constant tenet of that thousand-year tradition is a nation can only legitimately take up the sword ‘in self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed’ … That is, to be a just war it must be a defense against another who actively wages war, which is what the Holy Father actually said: ‘He does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war.’”
The Trump administration has made a point of distancing the US military from the concept of “defense.” It has added “Department of War” as the secondary name of the Pentagon, changing signs and business cards to lean in to the concept of “warfighting.”
Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, who goes by the secondary title of secretary of war, said they made the change to hark back to an era when the US won wars.
So there is something definitely offensive — as in the opposite of defensive — about how they have used the US military.
The ‘proportionality’ requirement
CNN’s Vatican Correspondent Christopher Lamb wrote about how Leo, the first American pope, has become increasingly vocal about the perils of war.
He noted that the Vatican has pointed out that a key principle of just war theory is the idea of “proportionality” — that the destruction caused by military action does not outweigh the good that is intended.
Cardinal Blase Cupich, archbishop of Chicago, told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour it was a bit shocking to hear Vance equate US involvement in World War II with the US and Israel’s war with Iran, which he said is a “war of choice.”
When Amanpour asked whether the war on Iran is a “just war,” Cupich said, “No, it is not just.”
A four-part test
The US Conference of Catholic Bishops linked to excerpts of the Catechism of the Catholic Church regarding “Safeguarding Peace” in its statement. The excerpts set out four conditions for “legitimate defense by military force” under “just war doctrine.”
They include:
- 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 modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
Just war in an era of weapons of mass destruction
Cupich referenced those conditions when he said modern weapons affect societies and endanger civilians in horrible ways. And he argued the Trump administration has not been clear about its ultimate objective.
“We’ve seen so many comments about this particular war in which the objective is not clearly defined, because it jumps from one topic to the other,” Cupich said.
The most commonly stated reason for the war from the Trump administration is that it was to keep Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Iran claimed its nuclear program was peaceful and for nuclear energy.
An Iranian resident looks out the window of his damaged home after Israeli-American strikes in Tehran on April 7, 2026.
AFP/Getty Images
Obama’s definition at his peace prize acceptance
For another thoughtful view of what constitutes a “just war,” take a look at the speech then-President Barack Obama gave in Oslo, Norway, upon receiving the Nobel Peace Prize in the first year of his presidency.
Obama laid out the importance of world order and the laws of war, concepts Trump and Hegseth have generally rejected. Hegseth, for instance, brags about throwing out rules of engagement in order to more effectively fight wars. Trump has complained repeatedly about the United Nations and threatened to pull the US out of NATO.
Obama also said religion should be left out of war, sounding very different from the Bible-quoting Hegseth, who has a symbol tied to the Crusades tattooed on his body.
OBAMA:“…The cruelties of the Crusades are amply recorded. But they remind us that no Holy War can ever be a just war. For if you truly believe that you are carrying out divine will, then there is no need for restraint — no need to spare the pregnant mother, or the medic, or the Red Cross worker, or even a person of one’s own faith. Such a warped view of religion is not just incompatible with the concept of peace, but I believe it’s incompatible with the very purpose of faith — for the one rule that lies at the heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.”
Obama also noted the oddity of receiving that award as commander in chief of the US military at a time when the US was mired in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The incongruity would only get more awkward as Obama frequently utilized the US military while in office and utilized drones to kill people — without, critics said, due process. At the same time, instead of waging war on Iran, he reached a deal to contain its nuclear program.
发表回复