By Robert Royal

In 9 AD, when Jesus was probably a teenager, the celebrated Roman general Publius Quintilicius Verus led Roman forces against a coalition of Germanic tribes in the Teutoberg Forest. Legions XVII, XVIII, and XIX were wiped out. The Roman Empire, like America today, was the strongest military in the world, and was deeply shaken by the defeat. Verus killed himself. The Emperor Augustus, according to Suetonius, virtually whimpered, "Varus, give me back my legions." Yet Rome carried on for centuries. Hardly anyone remembers the Battle of Teutoberg. But everyone remembers Jesus.

There are, of course, major turning points in history, and America may have just passed one in bombing Iran over the weekend. Still, it's good to remember, for those of us who believe in sacred history, that wars and rumors of wars are common. God's purposes may be otherwise. Jesus told us as much: "You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come." (Matthew 24:6-13, emphasis added)

Seemingly insignificant events, however, like the birth of a baby in an obscure corner of a great empire may be what really changes the world.

That said, the attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities raise some new and far-reaching questions, both military and moral. When America dropped nuclear bombs on Japan in 1945, Winston Churchill - a shrewd politician deep in history - remarked that henceforth security would be "the sturdy child of terror." He meant that The Bomb was so scary, with the potential to destroy the human race, that it would create a disincentive to use it by anyone but a madman.

One question, again both military and moral, about Iran is precisely whether the mullahs, their generals, and scientists are so fanatical - witness their repeated calls for the destruction of Israel and the Great Satan (i.e., America) - that they might be tempted to risk national suicide for their beliefs. They haven't hesitated to use conventional weapons directly and via proxies to kill thousands of people, including many Americans, in open attacks and terrorist incidents.

Since World War II, every pope has rightly warned about the horrors of war. But lately, Church leaders have noticeably drifted towards a pacifism that is no part of our tradition.

Pope Francis went beyond even the standard presumption against war to say, "There was a time, even in our Churches, when people spoke of a holy war or a just war. Today, we cannot speak in this manner. A Christian awareness of the importance of peace has developed. . . .Wars are always unjust, since it is the people of God who pay." [Emphasis added.]

Just this weekend, incomprehensibly, Pope Leo XIV claimed that wars never solve anything. Really? In 1941, Germany, Italy, and Japan were bitter enemies, but after being defeated in combat, are peaceful, prosperous allies.

Far more important than just one pope's opinion, the Church possesses a highly developed set of criteria for when it is just to resort to arms: yes, just-war theory. As difficult as it is to apply in current circumstances when the results may be not just large military and civilian casualties but the unleashing of near-apocalyptic nuclear exchanges, what else is there?

Take the first principle: Last Resort. There's a presumption against war in just-war theory. But if any military action at all is to be justifiable, there has to be a point at which a proper authority can say, "Enough!" Last resort cannot mean, just because we can continue imagining further approaches, that war never becomes the only reasonable option. America has tried pressure and dialogue for 46 years with Iran, for instance.

President Trump's decision is being debated even within the Republican Party, and a final evaluation of his choice will have to come after we see the results. Consequences do not justify the decision to go to war - that's a kind of consequentialism by which we would be saying something...