Pope Leo XIV has openly criticised ongoing military strikes on Iran by the United States and Israel, declaring that violence cannot be justified through religion and warning that “God does not bless any conflict.”
In a statement shared via his official X account on Friday, the pontiff rejected any attempt to associate Christianity with warfare, emphasising that followers of Jesus Christ — whom he described as the “Prince of Peace” — should not align with acts of violence.
“Anyone who is a disciple of Christ, the Prince of Peace, is never on the side of those who once wielded the sword and today drop bombs,” he wrote.
His comments come against the backdrop of rising tensions in the Middle East, following a series of strikes targeting Iranian positions, which have sparked fears of a wider regional crisis.
The Pope also dismissed arguments that military operations could lead to democratic progress or long-term stability, stressing that “military action will not create space for freedom or times of peace.”
He maintained that enduring peace can only be secured through consistent diplomatic efforts, urging the “patient promotion of coexistence and dialogue among peoples.”
READ ALSO: Pope Leo XIV Condemns War, Says God “Does Not Listen To Prayers Of Combatants”
Meanwhile, the Vatican’s stance contrasts sharply with that of Washington. Pete Hegseth has defended the strikes using religious rhetoric, describing the campaign as a “holy necessity.”
Speaking during a prayer session at the Pentagon, Hegseth called for divine backing for U.S. forces to execute what he termed “overwhelming violence of action,” portraying the offensive as part of a broader mission grounded in biblical justice and retribution.
“Let every round find its mark against the enemies of righteousness and our great nation,” he said.
The opposing views underscore a widening ideological gap between the Vatican and authorities in Washington and Tel Aviv, both of which have justified the strikes as vital for regional security.
The Pope’s remarks have since drawn significant attention online, with many interpreting them as a pointed criticism of the continued reliance on military force to resolve complex international conflicts.