The Church, War, and the Responsibility of Leaders: Archbishop Menamparampil Speaks Out

Archbishop Thomas Menamparampil, S.D.B. has spent decades working in some of the world’s most difficult conflict zones, including Northeast India, where he became widely respected for his efforts in peace-building, reconciliation, and dialogue between communities in conflict. A member of the Salesians of Don Bosco, he has also written extensively on globalization, violence, religion, and the moral responsibilities of political and religious leaders in times of crisis.

In this conversation with an anonymous Catholic writer based in the US, Archbishop Menamparampil, who is Archbishop Emeritus of Guwahati, India, reflects on the growing normalization of violence in global affairs, the moral responsibilities of world leaders, the role of the Church in promoting peace, and the importance of dialogue, restraint, and humility in resolving international conflicts. Drawing from Catholic social teaching and decades of firsthand experience in mediation and peace efforts, he offers his perspective on the current tensions involving the Middle East, global political leadership, and the path toward authentic peace.

1. On escalation and the Middle East
Your Excellency, in your writings, you emphasize that “arrogance provokes arrogance,” and that aggressive postures tend to escalate conflict rather than resolve it.
How do you see this dynamic unfolding in the current Middle East crisis, particularly in the interactions between the United States, Israel, and Iran?

My statement “Arrogance Provokes Arrogance” is another version of the thesis “Exaggeration invites Exaggeration”. Exploitative exaggerations of the 19th century Capitalist ventures gave rise to Marxist thinking and Communism in Eastern Europe; exaggerations of Communism, in turn, have brought back unregulated Capitalism.

According to several scholars, they were the wars of religion and other forms of violence that strengthened secularized thinking in the West. And recent exaggerations of secularists like the production of Danish cartoons or burning of sacred books have given fresh life to religious fundamentalism of an aggressive nature in several parts of the world.

This is an invitation of avoid arrogance and exaggeration.

Trump’s tariff wars have evoked a response from “friends and foes” alike. His arbitrary sanctions have driven their victims to despair, and desperate actions may follow when opportunities offer themselves.

Elimination of a head of state, invasion of sovereign nations and intrusion into their defence system are not considered legitimate actions. Bombing of schools would be held criminal. Resistance in return has only grown more determined.

2. On evaluating political leadership morally
You have written about the dangers of “lawlessness” in global leadership and the erosion of ethical norms in international affairs.
From a Catholic perspective, how should we evaluate the foreign policy approach of leaders like President Trump—especially regarding the use of force and claims of peace-making?

When national leaders ignore International Law, hold in contempt UN pronouncements, bypass widely respected international agreements, despise generally accepted inter-state relationship norms, they do no move up in public esteem.

Ethical decisions carry weight. International opinion has a convincing power. A respectful appeal persuades. Peaceful attitudes are not created by threats and ultimatums, but perceptive evaluation, intelligent analysis, respectful dealings, humble appeal.

3. On the normalization of violence
You have warned that when leaders remain silent or inconsistent, “horrors become normal.”
Do you believe we are witnessing a normalization of violence in global conflicts today, and what role should both political and religious leaders play in resisting this trend?

Stalin seems to have said, “Death of an individual is a horror, but the deaths of a million are mere statistics”. We seem to take coolly Trump’s threat to wipe out the entire civilization of Iran and the response of Iran that 30 million are getting ready to lay down their lives. Indeed, tales of horrors have become normal…over 70,000 each killed in Ukraine or Gaza. Will we wait till a horror strikes our neighbourhood?

Everyone plays a role within one’s possibility. Political leaders can propose other alternatives than war: moderation, re-thinking, dialogue, compromise, concessions, lower demands. They can directly intervene to help.

Religious leaders can appeal to religious/ethical convictions, elicit reflection, touch hearts, soothe feelings, evoke good will, point to dangers, refer to advantages of compromising.

4. On the role of the Church and tensions with political power
You stress that credibility comes from consistency, restraint, and moral clarity.
How should we understand tensions between the Holy Father and political leaders in times of war? What is the proper role of the Church in speaking into geopolitical conflicts?

I think Pope Leo XIV made his voice heard at the right time. When tragedies reached a high point, a firm voice was required. Tensions, if any, can always be resolved when common good, not personal prestige, is the goal.

5. On just war, prudential judgment, and the role of the Pope
Bishop Barron recently noted on X recently that “After laying out the various criteria for determining a just war—proportionality, last resort, declaration by a competent authority, reasonable hope of success, etc.— the Catechism points out that ‘the evaluation of [the] conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.’” He further clarified that “the assumption is that the just war principles function…as heuristic devices designed to guide the practical decision-making of those civil authorities who have to adjudicate matters of war and peace.”
Do you agree with this assessment of the role of civil authorities and that of the Church? Since the Holy Father also shares a responsibility for the common good on a global level, how should his voice and that of other Church leaders be weighed by political leaders when evaluating whether a war is just? 

Both Augustine and Thomas Aquinas discussed reasons for a ‘just war’, which included just cause, legitimate authority and peace aim. Whether a unilateral intervention like the one on Iran is by a legitimate authority remains a question. World opinion has clearly rejected any such claims. This evaluation cannot be dismissed outright.

Dealing with sensitive issues, I would not like to be judgmental. If peace is the goal of Trump as he has repeatedly claimed, he can boast less about the damage he has inflicted on Iran. He too has realized that his outrageous threats have only made him a laughingstock before the world.

I do not urge that judgement seats be multiplied, but that “bridge-builders and culture translators” increase. We need “creative thinkers”, not mere negotiators, in the area of peace as well.

Can the present American intervention be helped to conclude without Trump “losing his face” to excess? Can the damages inflicted in the Middle East be repaired with assistance from America and the wider world? Can the emotional distance between the Arab nations of the Middle East and Iran be narrowed so as to ensure peace in the region also in future?

6. On the Pope’s potential role in peace efforts
Given your emphasis on dialogue, moderation, and dignified exchange, do you believe the Holy Father’s presence and active involvement as an advocate for peace during negotiations could be helpful in resolving conflicts such as the present one? Why or why not?

The Church can play a big role in prompting the leaders to move in the direction that we have proposed above, especially in the area of bringing down negative emotions. Martha Nussbaum emphasizes the role that emotion plays in political decision-making.

Having worked for three decades in the field of peace-making in Northeast India, I know its centrality. It is only when emotions are down that reason begins to function normally, that negotiations can make any worthwhile progress.

Only a few have acquired the art of bringing down emotions, of reducing anger. Mahatma Gandhi did, Mother Teresa in some contexts. Church personnel can play a big role. Pope Leo XIV has been doing it, especially during his visits to Algeria and other African countries.

7. On a Christian path forward
 Your writings consistently point to moderation, dialogue, and “co-belonging” as the foundation for lasting peace.
 What would a truly Christian response to today’s global conflicts look like—not only for nations and leaders, but for ordinary believers?

Peace-making is everyone’s task: the comments you make on world events, the ideas you share, the study you pursue, the articles you write, the phone-calls you make, the solutions you propose, the whisper you make to a leader, the gentleness you adopt, the fervour with which you pray…everything helps.

8. On media and the cycle of conflict

Your writings highlight how rhetoric—boasts, threats, and exaggerations—can intensify conflict and shape public perception.In your view, how has modern media (including news outlets and social media) contributed to the escalation or normalization of violence in global conflicts? And what responsibility does the media - and especially Catholic media - have in fostering truth, restraint, and peace? 

The media should not hastily go for questionable interpretations of tragedies. If horrors need to be reported, efforts pursued for peace also ought to be given attention.

Sensation and excitement are not the goals of media personnel, but information, education, evangelization. There is always a positive side to a tragedy. There is a way forward after every deadlock. There is hope of solution even for a problem that seems unsolvable. Media can point in a helpful direction.

9. Open-ended reflection
 Is there anything else you would like to add—perhaps a message to Catholics or to world leaders at this moment of global tension?

Pope John Paul II, during a visit to Kazakhstan, proposed, “It is through dialogue, not weapons, that controversies are resolved”. It was soon after the attack on World Trade Centre in New York.

I would like to echo the same message in these troubled times.