In recent weeks, a sharp and unusually public tension has emerged between Donald Trump and Pope Leo XIV over issues of war, morality, and the role of religion in public life. Much of the attention has focused on tone and rhetoric – particularly the sharp and often dismissive language used by President Trump – but that focus risks obscuring what is, in my view, the more important substantive issue: on certain questions of war and moral responsibility, the pope is not only mistaken, but his position is morally wrong and ultimately damaging for the good of the world and for humanity, and that needs to be said clearly.

The following points, however, can all be true at the same time.

First, the pope is entirely within his rights to apply his religious teachings to contemporary global issues. The purpose of religion is not to remain in the realm of abstract study, but to bring moral and theological values to bear on real-world challenges. A religious leader who refrains from engaging questions of war, justice, and human suffering would be abdicating a central aspect of his role.

Second, while I understand that President Trump often speaks in a combative and direct manner, I am not comfortable with that style, particularly in this context. The dismissive and personal nature of his rhetoric toward the pope is problematic and does not foster the kind of thoughtful and respectful dialogue that serious moral issues demand. Even when one believes strongly in the correctness of a position, the manner in which it is communicated matters deeply, and in this case, the tone detracts from the gravity of the discussion.

Third, this situation raises an important question: can one argue with the leading religious authority of a faith? How would the Torah understand the parameters of authority and disagreement? The Torah demands deep respect for great rabbinic figures, whose wisdom, experience, and learning carry significant weight. At the same time, it does not view their rulings as beyond discussion. The halachic system is fundamentally built on analysis, challenge, and the ongoing refinement of truth. The Rema (Yoreh Deah 242:31) permits a person to seek a second opinion even after receiving a ruling, provided one is transparent about the first ruling – an indication that no single voice ends the conversation. Joseph B. Soloveitchik sharpens this idea further by explaining that a halachic ruling is a cheftza shel Torah – an object within Torah itself – subject to continued clarification through massa u’matan, the give-and-take of Torah discourse. Within this framework, disagreement – when conducted seriously and respectfully – is not a challenge to authority, but an expression of it, as the system itself invites engagement in the collective pursuit of truth.

However, these important discussions – about authority, tone, and the legitimacy of disagreement – can easily obscure the central issue, which is far more direct.

Catholic moral theology does indeed articulate a sophisticated Just War tradition, rooted in the teachings of Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas, and codified in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. This tradition holds that war is never good in itself, but may be morally permissible – and tightly constrained – when it is necessary to confront grave injustice. It requires strict conditions such as just cause, legitimate authority, proportionality, right intention, and last resort, along with clear limits on the conduct of war.

From a Torah perspective, however, while there is deep agreement on the moral seriousness of war and the strong imperative to avoid it whenever possible, there is also a clear halachic category of milchemet mitzvah, in which war is not merely permitted but obligatory in order to defend Jewish lives against an enemy committed to our destruction. When confronted with an adversary that has repeatedly declared its intent to destroy Israel, and which has also labeled the United States the “Great Satan” while sustaining a pattern of hostility toward America since the Iranian Revolution – including proxy warfare, nuclear escalation concerns, ideological confrontation, and numerous acts of terrorism and violence against American interests – Torah sources do not frame restraint as the sole or overriding moral ideal. Rather, they recognize an ethical imperative to act decisively in defense of life in the face of existential threat.

In that sense, while there is much “noise” surrounding this debate – the tone of political leaders, questions about papal authority, and the meta-question of whether one may publicly disagree with the pope – the core moral claim must remain clear. From a Torah standpoint, there are moments in which the obligation to wage defensive war is not only justified, but required. And while these broader discussions are important, they should not obscure that fundamental moral reality. Indeed, it is precisely this moral clarity – rooted in Torah values – that must be articulated clearly and confidently, not only within our own community but for the broader world to hear.

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)