Catholic Just War Doctrine in a Time of War

I am not a theologian, but I relied on the Catholic just war tradition during a time of war, when the decisions before me carried consequences measured in human lives. That tradition, refined over nearly two thousand years, exists precisely for moments like that. Today, the Church articulates that tradition through a clear moral framework—what we call just war doctrine. 

I want to make a case—to Catholics and non-Catholics alike—that this tradition matters now. Pope Leo XIV has spoken powerfully about peace. That emphasis may reflect a pastoral corrective in a violent moment, but he has not engaged with the doctrine the Church itself provides.

The Strait of Hormuz: Secure the Present, Build a Different Future

In the late 1980s, I worked at the Office of Naval Intelligence, supporting U.S. naval operations in the Persian Gulf. One of those operations was Earnest Will, the largest convoy escort mission since World War II. American warships protected reflagged Kuwaiti tankers from Iranian mines and small-boat attacks. Despite those threats, the operation succeeded. The Strait remained open, and Iran ultimately backed down.

That success, however, masked a larger failure. We solved the immediate problem but left the underlying one intact. Iran retained the ability to threaten the strait, and the world remained dependent on it. Four decades later, we are paying the price.

Today, the Strait of Hormuz is effectively closed again. Commercial shipping has fallen by more than 90 percent, and millions of barrels of oil per day have been removed from the market. Prices have surged past $100 a barrel, and economies that depend heavily on Gulf energy, particularly in Asia, are scrambling to adjust. This was not an unforeseen development; it was the predictable result of a vulnerability that was never addressed.

Birthright Citizenship: A Personal Take on the Supreme Court Arguments

This week, I listened to the Supreme Court’s oral arguments in Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. Barbara, et al.—a case that could redefine birthright citizenship in America. Both sides presented serious legal interpretations, and anyone claiming certainty about the outcome is probably allowing politics to influence their thinking. We should expect a ruling by the end of the Court’s term in June.

My interest in this case extends beyond academic curiosity. I minored in law during college and seriously considered law school, but I ultimately pursued a career as a Naval Intelligence officer. While serving in Washington, D.C., I lived just a few blocks behind the Supreme Court building and the Capitol and spent years witnessing how law and policy function in real-world situations—often in more complex ways than they appear from an outsider's perspective. This case is just as complex.

Some History Worth Knowing

The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, ratified between 1865 and 1870, aimed to rebuild the nation after the Civil War and ensure equal rights for formerly enslaved people. The 14th Amendment, in particular, granted citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” while also securing due process and equal protection.

That language was clear in its immediate purpose but left room for interpretation—especially the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” That ambiguity is precisely what the Court is now being asked to resolve.