Pope Leo, The Scriptural Conundrum, And Alan Dershowitz

Pope Leo Explains God Does Not Listen To People Who Wage War So Long As You Don’t Count Moses, David, Joshua, Elijah, Saul, Gideon, Samson, Or Anyone Else In Bible https://t.co/8Hu7kJv7hc pic.twitter.com/q2jBwHjSST

— The Babylon Bee (@TheBabylonBee) March 29, 2026

I double checked this with AI, which replied,

Yes, Pope Leo XIV stated that God "does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war" during his Palm Sunday homily on March 29, 2026.

Speaking to tens of thousands in St. Peter's Square, the Pope condemned the ongoing conflict between the U.S., Israel, and Iran as "atrocious" and warned against using faith to justify violence.

. . . He cited Isaiah 1:15 to emphasize his point: "Even though you make many prayers, I will not listen: your hands are full of blood".

But then I asked AI about Moses and the battle with the Amalekites:

According to Exodus 17:8-16, the Battle of Rephidim saw Joshua lead the Israelites against the Amalekites while Moses, Aaron, and Hur watched from a hill. The Israelites prevailed whenever Moses held up the "staff of God," but faltered when he lowered it due to fatigue. Aaron and Hur Supported his arms with a stone for sitting, allowing Joshua to secure victory until sunset.

A quick web search brings up the point that in Isaiah 1:15, God is specifically rebuking the later-stage Southern Kingdom of Judah, which had fallen into hypocrisy. This wasn't the case with Moses, Aaron, Hur, and Joshua, who were doing God's will. It's hard to avoid a conclusion that if your cause is in accordance with God's will, even when you go to war, God listens to your prayers.

But let's go to the specific wording of The Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 2309:

The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. the gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. . . . the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. the power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

Let's consider very recent remarks by Alan Dershowitz, who by his account speaks frequently with Prime Minister Netanyahu, and whose viewpoint must certainly have influenced the prudential judgment of both Netanyahu and President Trump, whose mutual reponsibility it is to evaluate the moral legitimacy of the Iran war.

The military action undertaken against Iran, designed to prevent it from developing a nuclear arsenal, is the most significant since World War II.

This is a remarkable assessment, and it relies on what the meaning of "significant" is. The Korean and Viet Nam wars were longer and invoived far more forces on both sides, but they were fought to a stalemate, a result of a policy context of "containing" the Soviet Union, not defeating it. This likely won't happen with Iran, and it certainly isn't the US or Israeli intent. I think Dershowitz is correct in equating the moral significance of the Iran war with World War II in the area of averting potential widespread destruction of innnocent life.

Indeed, had similar preventive military action been taken against the Nazi regime in the 1930s, it might have saved as many as 50 million lives. If the military attack against Iran succeeds in preventing it from developing a nuclear arsenal, it too may prevent millions of deaths — we will never know how many.

We will only learn the deadly numbers if this attack fails and Iran develops and deploys nuclear weapons.

Preventive military actions are always controversial and often unpopular, because history is blind to the probabilistic future. If prevention succeeds, we never know its benefits. If it fails, we learn its costs the hard way.

What Dershowitz is saying here is that, weighing the circumstances, those who have responsibility for the public good have chosen to venture into war. He doesn't mention Clausewitz, but Clausewitz has a great deal to say about being blind to the probabilistic future -- it's simply part of war:

War is the province of uncertainty: three-fourths of those things upon which action in war must be calculated, are hidden more or less in the clouds of great uncertainty. Here, then, above all a fine and penetrating mind is called for, to grope out the truth by the tact of its judgment.

. . . Resolution is an act of courage in single instances, and if it becomes a characteristic trait, it is a habit of the mind. But here we do not mean courage in face of bodily danger, but in face of responsibility, therefore to a certain extent against moral danger.

Dershowitz brings up a question that strikes me as very close to Clausewitz's invocation of resolution as courage against moral danger:

Trump has said if the U.S. had not bombed Iran’s nuclear facilities back in June, Iran would already have a nuclear bomb and would have used it. That may or may not be accurate. We can never know for certain. But do we have to take that risk, and does Israel? Or are these two nations entitled — or perhaps obligated — to eliminate or at least reduce that risk by preventive military action? Should they have to wait until it is imminent, which may mean too late or almost too late to prevent it?

What Dershowitz is arguing is that we're never going to be completely certain about either the conditions that may have led to the war -- was Iran actually just weeks from building and deploying a nuclear weapon? -- or what the outcome may be -- will we be able finally to prevent Iran from ever doing this? -- but we have entrusted the elected leadership in both Israel and the US with the prudential judgment and the resolution to go to war.

But Dershowitz leaves aside the scriptural conundrum (and so does the pope): irrespective of the New Covenant, the Abrahamic Covenant is eternal and remains in effect. God still has a special relationship with Israel. It's a major mistake to ignore this.