Pope Francis On Ukraine

There's been a certain amount of commentary -- at minimum, somewhat bewildered -- about Pope Francis's recent remarks on Ukraine. The full text of a wider-ranging exchange in which he made them is here. I think they should also be taken in the context of official remarks by Cardinal Parolin, the Vatican Secretary of State:

Cardinal Pietro Parolin, the Vatican’s secretary of state, has reiterated that Ukraine has a “legitimate” right to defend itself from Russian aggression, but he also has warned that weapons being sent there by other countries could lead to a “terrible” escalation of the war.

“Ukraine is resisting Russia based on this principle,” Parolin said in a recent exclusive interview with CNA, referring to the right of self defense.

They should also be seen in the context of CCC 2309:

- 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.

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.

I've always been impressed by the respect this shows for Clausewitz's view that chance and uncertainty, which bring guesswork and luck to the fore, play a major part in war. Thus evaluation of conditions for moral legitimacy ultimately depends on the prudential judgment of political leadership, and the conditions will always be subject to change. Consequently, there can be no black and white. The Vatican's official position leans in favor of Ukraine, but potential escalation, taking into consideration the power of weapons that could be used, could change the conditions for moral legitimacy.

I don't see how Francis's remarks contradict existing Church policy or teaching:

To answer this question we have to move away from the normal pattern of “Little Red Riding Hood”: Little Red Riding Hood was good and the wolf was the bad guy. Here there are no metaphysical good guys and bad guys, in an abstract sense. Something global is emerging, with elements that are very much intertwined. A couple of months before the war started I met a head of state, a wise man, who speaks very little, very wise indeed. After we talked about the things he wanted to talk about, he told me that he was very concerned about the way NATO was moving. I asked him why, and he said, “They are barking at the gates of Russia. They do not understand that the Russians are imperialists and will allow no foreign power to approach them.” He concluded, “The situation could lead to war.” This was his opinion. On February 24, the war began. That head of state was able to read the signs of what was taking place.

What we are seeing is the brutality and ferocity with which this war is being carried out by the troops, generally mercenaries, used by the Russians. The Russians prefer to send in Chechen and Syrian mercenaries. But the danger is that we only see this, which is monstrous, and we do not see the whole drama unfolding behind this war, which was perhaps somehow either provoked or not prevented. And note the interest in testing and selling weapons. It is very sad, but at the end of the day that is what is at stake.

It seems to me that, irrespective of any specifics Francis may have in mind, trends like the development of a pan-Baltic economic zone that I've discussed here are in fact making Putin and others in Russia uncomfortable. I've said here that I don't think either Finland or Sweden mooted NATO membership out of the blue after Russia invaded Ukraine; they perceived the need for such a thing well before last February. The invasion simply created a credible pretext. Isn't this something Francis and the unnamed head of state might credibly have discussed? Indeed, Francis is an ethnic Italian whose mind is likely to move in a Machiavellian direction, not without reason here.

So I don't see anything off with the observation that factors leading to the war were "perhaps somehow either provoked or not prevented". Indeed, Francis's position is on the face of it not inconsistent with Trump's position since the February invasion, which has been that it would not have taken place if he were president. We can argue that neither Francis nor Trump understands the circumstances, but they are arguable, and indeed, it's arguable that there were good reasons Putin didn't invade Ukraine while Trump was president. These matters are well within the prudential judgment of political leaders.

Farther down, Francis makes an observation I've made here, and indeed, President Zelensky has said the same thing:

The world is at war. A few years ago it occurred to me to say that we are living the third world war piece by piece. For me, today, World War III has been declared.

He goes on to ask,

What is happening to humanity that we have had three world wars in a century?

Good question. Recall that a generation ago, US policymakers were being told history was over, there weren't going to be any more world wars. What was wrong with US policy planning that kept us oblivious? Isn't Francis asking that very question? Couldn't political leadership have anticipated developments better?

Frankly, I think Francis is underrated. In fact, I've come to like the guy.