Got any other breaking news for me Mark? I had no idea. I prefer the vicar of Christ's opinion on matters of morality rather than the twice-divorced casino owner who banged a porn star while his third wife was pregnant, how about you?
Thank you Batya. Why the Pope is completely silent about the electoral fraud going on in Perú? After all, he sees himself more of a Peruvian than American.
I'm still waiting for the Pope to denounce the slaughter of christians on Palm Sunday by Islamists. Instead he went and visited Algeria. What does it say about the leader of a people who cares more about embracing those sworn to murder his flock than his own flock...If, in his head he thinks this is going to change Islamists he has not read the room...oh and of course, he has brought back good old fashioned Catholic Jew-hatred...but then again since woke is his religion I guess you would expect nothing less
The Pope knew exactly what he was doing. I’m not sure why he decided to take on Trump, because only a comatose person would think that Donald Trump wouldn’t come right back at him in the way only Trump does.
And this is the thing about Trump - he’s not going to back down because the Pope takes a backhanded swipe at him. He’s not going to back down because of polls. He’s not going to keep his mouth shut in hopes of keeping the Catholic vote. He doesn’t care what his critics say or think or do. Like it or not, he is LEADING, not campaigning, not pandering, and not straddling.
Nothing backhanded about it. You and Batya seem to misinterpret this, he is Anti-War. Not Anti-Trump's War or Anti-Bush's War. Anti-War. The Pope does not concern himself with the trivial and childlike whim of an orange clown.
Jeff this may come as a surprise but you can hold two different thoughts/ideas in your head at the same time. All the people mentioned above have maintained their opposition to this war and also said they want the regime taken out. Now, both them and Donald are wrong and we should in fact help Iran disarm and denuclearize the zionist entity, but that's just me
Well why not be anti-killing? Anti-terrorism? Your last sentence gives you away. Could it possibly be that you’re really not pro Pope but just anti-Trump? We can discuss the behavior of both men without resorting to silly name calling.
I get it. He’s anti-war. Of course he is. And I get that you are anti-trump and anti-Israel. And I get that you think the pope’s message was apolitical. But that doesn’t address MY point, which is that earlier this year the Iranian government murdered thousands of their own citizens(!) for PROTESTING peacefully. They horribly oppress their women and girls. But, aside from that , this pope feels compelled to speak out against people who are trying to stop the threat they have posed for half a century. Maybe the pope did speak out against the Iranian government, but if he did, he did so without fanfare.
Roger, we will not agree on this and I appreciate that when you push back against my opinions, you do it respectfully. That’s not always the case. I am not Catholic and so really have no dog in this fight - to put it indelicately - but I am a Christian and I find it curious that the pope, who represents millions, chooses NOW to speak out and chooses THIS to speak out about. That doesn’t feel just a tiny bit political to you? Just a teeny, tiny bit?
My original points were made about Trump’s resolve. And that the pope criticizing his policies or decisions will not deter him. That’s all. It wasn’t a criticism about what the pope said - he’s free to say whatever he believes God compels him to say. I have a problem when religious leaders take the liberty of representing an entire religion and use it selectively FOR or AGAINST issues that can be robed in principle but end up having a political consequence.
Do you see the point I am making? Isn’t the pope’s mission to bring the wondering and lost into the fold that he shepherds? Controversy - whether intended or not - works against that mission.
You (and Batya) are not Catholic and hence probably not familiar with the writings of St. Augustine, one of the four major Fathers of the Church who wrote extensively during the fifth century AD and first outlined the concept of “just war” theory which the Catholic Church still firmly adheres to today. Whether or not you (and Batya) agree with the Church’s teachings on this subject is a matter of theology and personal belief, however, not politics, and the Pope, who started his career as an Augustinian friar, is on absolutely firm moral and “non-political” ground in publicly opposing what he sees as a war initiated in defiance of the Church’s precepts.
Augustine’s “City of God” is a pretty ponderous work - about a thousand pages long, the man definitely didn’t have a talent for conciseness! - but if you want to restrict yourself to the “meat” of just war theory I’d refer you to Book 19 where he presents a detailed argument based on interpretation of the Gospels.
Let me just add that Trump’s attack on the Pope was ill-conceived and childish and has already cost him heavily in terms of support among Catholic voters, who, whether or not they’ve read Augustine, know that the Pope is perfectly within his role as the Vicar of Christ when instructing his flock and proclaiming the age-old teachings of the Church on this particular topic.
I see your perspective. I could refute many of your points, but to what end? I think we would only be talking past one another. I do appreciate your very polite and well-informed response. These are conversations best had over coffee, am I right? Trying to do so on Substack is hard for me. But I will read and reread your points because I do want to think about them and check my instinctive responses against facts or at least supportable data. If I can that together, I hope you won’t mind if I respond at a later date.
Mike, thank you for a thoughtful and informative reply. I do know of Augustine, but not to the extent you do. I have never read his work beyond selected quotes and passages.
I’m not here to attack the Pope. I agree with you that the President, once again, took the bait and came out swinging. The Pope may not have meant his statement to criticize Trump personally, but if he’s been paying attention at all, it’s no surprise that that’s the way Trump heard it. However, that is not a defense - it’s merely an observation.
Being a Christian who does not venerate any man but Christ, I did hear his words as political, because he failed to provide context. His words are not just published for Catholics. The whole world heard them. I certainly did not know there was a particular meaning behind that phrase. Can you understand how that could have been interpreted as simply a criticism of the war, period, which in this country is a very political statement?
I have just had quite a back-and-forth here on Substack with a Jewish man from Israel. They regard the Catholic Church as historically antisemitic - staunchly so. The Pope’s words did nothing to help that. See, they do believe this is a just war - they are fighting for survival. In this day and time, everything is political - like it or not. Does the Pope not understand the world to whom he speaks?
You say that he is perfectly within his appointed role to guide his flock and point out violations of the precepts of the church. You are absolutely right. However, I am asking you to look at his declaration through the eyes of a non-Catholic Christian in America. Look at it through the eyes of a man who has been treated as our president has. His words can be ill-conceived and childish, but he is consistent - he’s a fighter. I guarantee you he does not know of the extensive writing about “just war” by Augustine, and the Pope had to know that.
If the President’s words are sufficient to cost the Republican Party heavily, well, that’s a whole other issue. I pay no attention to what the President says about half the time. I pay attention to what he DOES 100% of the time. That’s why I continue to support him.
I assume that what was happening in this country had to be in violation of the precepts of the Catholic Church. But we heard no rebuke of that from the Vatican. We heard about climate change. We heard about immigration from behind the wall that surrounds the Vatican. But I don’t recall anything that might ruffle the feathers of those who were leading us down a most immoral path.
This is what Batya and many, many others are questioning. He may not be a political person. He may have no political agenda, but the Pope understands the territory he stepped into by choosing those words at the time he chose them. We can argue technicalities, but this is the perception and perception IS reality to flawed humans who have notions about war and morality based on the simple words of the Bible. That book suggests that men must defend the world against suicidal mad men that have no regard for the value of God-given life.
I agree with you that the Pope had to know that his statement would be interpreted as political - as you said, nowadays virtually anything a major leader says gets interpreted that way, regardless of whether the leader is a political or religious figure. That being said, the entire point of Augustine’s writings sixteen centuries ago was to develop the moral arguments for and against the political enterprise of war based on biblical precepts and Christian teaching; if the Pope, then, isn’t supposed to pronounce on events such as the initiation and justifications offered for a major war which could potentially take millions of innocent lives then what in the hell is he supposed to talk about? For a Catholic at least, it would seem to be the Pope’s moral obligation to present his thoughts and guide his flock on this issue; given the inevitable intersections between faith and politics participation in the political process has to be seen as a form of moral action for individual Catholics, and not just when it comes to voting on an issue like abortion where US conservatives seem to be much happier for the Vicar of Christ to speak out publicly.
As for how the Pope’s message was perceived by non-Catholics and Israelis, I can see why they might disagree with his message but I’m not sure it’s the Pope’s job to compromise on what he sees as the truth in order to spare the feelings of non-Catholics. The Church’s “just war theory”, as first elucidated by Augustine and later enlarged by St. Thomas Aquinas and others, specifies among other things that in order for a war to be “just” it should be embarked on by competent authority (i.e., in order to avoid empowering a tyrant who’d understand he could act without accountability; arguably not a criterion met in this case where the war was embarked on without congressional authority), should be resorted to only when an enemy threat is imminent (Iran was still a few years away from constructing a nuclear weapon according to our own intelligence agencies and, more importantly, at least a decade away from building ICBM’s capable of striking the North American continent), and should seek an achievable and realistic goal (how could the administration think that regime change and the surrender of Iran’s nuclear material could be achieved without a land invasion? - regimes rarely collapse in response to an aerial bombardment alone).
Beyond all this lie the questions of distinction and proportionality, i.e., having to do with minimizing collateral harm to civilian populations. The US has so far adhered to these but Trump’s threats to annihilate power plants, desalination facilities, and wipe out Iran’s entire “civilization” would, if carried out, definitely violate these precepts; in the meantime Israel’s actions in southern Lebanon, where IDF soldiers have committed widespread looting, evidently with the full awareness and approval of higher-up’s in their chain of command, and where hundreds of civilians have been killed and roughly a million transformed into refugees, with the entire population of the part of the country south of the Litani River being told bluntly by the Israeli government that they can never be allowed to return to their homes due to Israel’s decision to create a permanently depopulated “buffer zone” there, arguably already have.
I honestly don’t see how the Pope could not have commented on these perceived violations of Catholic doctrine in real time; the impression I have is that his critics aren’t so much upset with what they say is “politicized” timing as with the critical nature of his comments. This is a war of choice embarked on by Israel and the US and, as I’ve tried to point out, very difficult to justify according to “just war” theory. The Pope really had to say something if he saw all this as a violation of those particular teachings.
I disagree strongly with the Pope's message. However, I have an open mind and may reconsider when the Pope welcomes about 1000 Iranian mullahs into to live at the Vatican. After all, we can't choose our brothers and sisters--or just brothers in this case.
Saying the pope is woke reveals someone so narrow minded they can only think in one category. The pope is an absolute monarch, and the Catholics in the trump admin are his subjects. If the trump admin thinks the war in Iran is justified, so be it. Justify it in terms of US policy or whatever. What they can’t do is make any authoritative claim regarding the Catholic Church’s position on the matter. JD Vance is just some guy from Ohio (or wherever it is in that area his from), he has absolutely no authority to present his opinion as the Church’s official position. You can argue forever about the nuances of just war theory, blah, blah blah, but the pope is the supreme legislator, executor and judge when it comes to Catholic teaching. There is no appeal against the pope. You disagree with the pope, and you cannot accept his spiritual authority. It happens to people across the political spectrum, but the whole “the pope is woke” is just silly. The pope isn’t being woke, he is exercising his authority as the absolute monarch he is. It is just stupid for these people in the trump admin to think they can argue with the pope on matters of Catholic teaching. It is important that the pope sets the record straight so that people understand that JD Vance et al. have absolutely zero authority in the Catholic Church, an institution that is much older the the US government and one that will outlast it.
In my case, you're preaching to the converted. Unilateral peace behavior in the presence of evil pretty much guarantees Evil wins. Not fighting evil when you have the means to do so is a mental illness. For a pope to come out with these positions proves there is something deeply wrong in the Catholic church that they groom an army of clergy into that kind of self-sustaining group think. So, of course, when a pope is elected, he comes from that group of robots.
Thomas Aquinas (ca. mid 1200's shaped "Just War" thought) and that persisted to about 1930's. So much for "thousands of years." My branch of the Daugherty family departed Ireland and Catholicism about 250 years ago, so we've been completely clear of the pope for a good while. Thank God!
Theology is not my strong discipline but I do know Catholic just war doctrine as established by St. Augustine and elaborated by St. Thomas Aquinas. In his initial statement, the Pope seemed oblivious, condemning all wars without distinction a la Yoko Ono. Some other Catholic figures later argued just war theory in defense of the Pope while others argued the other side. This is appropriate activity for Catholics. I am sure his visit from Axelrod right before his statement was just a coincidence.
Oh please, I am a Catholic theologian and canon lawyer. Unlike Vance and the author of this article, I have all my degrees (up to a Ph.D. and a pontifical degree in Catholic theology and law). No need for me to read unreal articles like the one here….lol. I can guarantee that the author of this article has no sense whatsoever of Catholic teaching. All she can do is plug everything into her own little categories, which are few. War is always bad, the Catholic Church concedes some wars are justified even if war always mean there has been a profound failure somewhere. It is pretty comical watching JD Vance stupid himself. The Catholic Church is never going to bend to him or trump, and neither understand it. trump’s name won’t even be a memory, and the Catholic Church will still be going strong…
Is the Pope ever going to make a statement about the constant slaughtering of Christians in Africa by the Vatican's new best friend...Islam? or does he have to go through the powers in the Democrat Party?
When Pope Leo spoke of woe to those who manipulate religion for their own military, economic and political gain, he must have been speaking of the radical Islamists. Who has done more to use religion for their own gain in the last 50 years?
Many like myself were not offended by a man who works relentlessly to save US🇺🇸 from corruption and evil.
Missionaries (Apostles)
Commissioned to Serve: While "disciple" means learner, Jesus often sent them out (making them apostles, or "sent ones") to heal the sick and preach that the Kingdom of God was arriving.
The Catholic Church has participated in many wars, inquisitions and colonial actions over its history. It has forgiven warriors of their action's consequences. The Church combined with Kings (real ones) to further their political and theological agendas. AI estimates 0ver the history on religious wars that over 20 million were killed (not adjusted for the increase in global population), The old and the New Testament can be searched in AI in regards to the Bibles view on war. Here is an excerpt:
The Bible doesn’t give a single rule like “war is always right” or “war is always wrong.” Instead:
It records wars, sometimes as justified in context.
It points toward peace as the ultimate ideal.
It teaches individuals to pursue nonviolence, especially in the New Testament.
Bat.. You quote only 30,000 Iranian protestors...Trump says 45,000.. who is telling the truth? Are you denying the humanity of 15,000 dead protestors? (1/2 by your count)
Batya Ungar-Sargon, a graduate of an Israeli high school, has thoughts on how the Pope, whom Catholics believe is the vicar of Christ, is an antisemite because he DARE condemn violence done in the name of Judaism (Remember: Judaism=Zionism, according to the IHRA definition). News at 11....
Catholic here. I like the Pope, and I like Trump, but I only voted for one of them.
Got news for you, only one is the vicar of Christ.
Correct. And the other one is president of the United States.
Got any other breaking news for me Mark? I had no idea. I prefer the vicar of Christ's opinion on matters of morality rather than the twice-divorced casino owner who banged a porn star while his third wife was pregnant, how about you?
Scintillating discussion, thanks buddy
Thank you Batya. Why the Pope is completely silent about the electoral fraud going on in Perú? After all, he sees himself more of a Peruvian than American.
"Why is the pope silent on the "electoral fraud in peru," he asks, clearly not hearing himself.
I'm still waiting for the Pope to denounce the slaughter of christians on Palm Sunday by Islamists. Instead he went and visited Algeria. What does it say about the leader of a people who cares more about embracing those sworn to murder his flock than his own flock...If, in his head he thinks this is going to change Islamists he has not read the room...oh and of course, he has brought back good old fashioned Catholic Jew-hatred...but then again since woke is his religion I guess you would expect nothing less
He did. You don't care though.
Don’t act like a child and people may actually take you seriously.
The Pope knew exactly what he was doing. I’m not sure why he decided to take on Trump, because only a comatose person would think that Donald Trump wouldn’t come right back at him in the way only Trump does.
And this is the thing about Trump - he’s not going to back down because the Pope takes a backhanded swipe at him. He’s not going to back down because of polls. He’s not going to keep his mouth shut in hopes of keeping the Catholic vote. He doesn’t care what his critics say or think or do. Like it or not, he is LEADING, not campaigning, not pandering, and not straddling.
Nothing backhanded about it. You and Batya seem to misinterpret this, he is Anti-War. Not Anti-Trump's War or Anti-Bush's War. Anti-War. The Pope does not concern himself with the trivial and childlike whim of an orange clown.
Exactly right, DeeDee. Leadership is not going along with the pack.
The pack of what, Jeff? Ask any politician if they want to take out Iran, they all agree. The pack is firmly in Trump's camp on this matter.
Who have you asked?
On the other side, Schumer, Jeffries, hell even pelosi have all said they want the regime in Iran taken out. You're in the pack bucko
They've all said one thing and then flipped to the other side. At one time they were anti-illegal immigration, too.🙄
That's the pack, neighbor. Stampeding in one direction and then stampeding in another direction.
Jeff this may come as a surprise but you can hold two different thoughts/ideas in your head at the same time. All the people mentioned above have maintained their opposition to this war and also said they want the regime taken out. Now, both them and Donald are wrong and we should in fact help Iran disarm and denuclearize the zionist entity, but that's just me
Well why not be anti-killing? Anti-terrorism? Your last sentence gives you away. Could it possibly be that you’re really not pro Pope but just anti-Trump? We can discuss the behavior of both men without resorting to silly name calling.
He is anti-killing, anti-terrorism, that's precisely why he speaks out against the GENOCIDE in Gaza committed by the Israelis.
I get it. He’s anti-war. Of course he is. And I get that you are anti-trump and anti-Israel. And I get that you think the pope’s message was apolitical. But that doesn’t address MY point, which is that earlier this year the Iranian government murdered thousands of their own citizens(!) for PROTESTING peacefully. They horribly oppress their women and girls. But, aside from that , this pope feels compelled to speak out against people who are trying to stop the threat they have posed for half a century. Maybe the pope did speak out against the Iranian government, but if he did, he did so without fanfare.
Roger, we will not agree on this and I appreciate that when you push back against my opinions, you do it respectfully. That’s not always the case. I am not Catholic and so really have no dog in this fight - to put it indelicately - but I am a Christian and I find it curious that the pope, who represents millions, chooses NOW to speak out and chooses THIS to speak out about. That doesn’t feel just a tiny bit political to you? Just a teeny, tiny bit?
My original points were made about Trump’s resolve. And that the pope criticizing his policies or decisions will not deter him. That’s all. It wasn’t a criticism about what the pope said - he’s free to say whatever he believes God compels him to say. I have a problem when religious leaders take the liberty of representing an entire religion and use it selectively FOR or AGAINST issues that can be robed in principle but end up having a political consequence.
Do you see the point I am making? Isn’t the pope’s mission to bring the wondering and lost into the fold that he shepherds? Controversy - whether intended or not - works against that mission.
You (and Batya) are not Catholic and hence probably not familiar with the writings of St. Augustine, one of the four major Fathers of the Church who wrote extensively during the fifth century AD and first outlined the concept of “just war” theory which the Catholic Church still firmly adheres to today. Whether or not you (and Batya) agree with the Church’s teachings on this subject is a matter of theology and personal belief, however, not politics, and the Pope, who started his career as an Augustinian friar, is on absolutely firm moral and “non-political” ground in publicly opposing what he sees as a war initiated in defiance of the Church’s precepts.
Augustine’s “City of God” is a pretty ponderous work - about a thousand pages long, the man definitely didn’t have a talent for conciseness! - but if you want to restrict yourself to the “meat” of just war theory I’d refer you to Book 19 where he presents a detailed argument based on interpretation of the Gospels.
Let me just add that Trump’s attack on the Pope was ill-conceived and childish and has already cost him heavily in terms of support among Catholic voters, who, whether or not they’ve read Augustine, know that the Pope is perfectly within his role as the Vicar of Christ when instructing his flock and proclaiming the age-old teachings of the Church on this particular topic.
I see your perspective. I could refute many of your points, but to what end? I think we would only be talking past one another. I do appreciate your very polite and well-informed response. These are conversations best had over coffee, am I right? Trying to do so on Substack is hard for me. But I will read and reread your points because I do want to think about them and check my instinctive responses against facts or at least supportable data. If I can that together, I hope you won’t mind if I respond at a later date.
Over coffee or a glass of wine? I guess it depends on the time of day, LOL…
I would need to be on top of my game with you - so coffee definitely. 😏
Mike, thank you for a thoughtful and informative reply. I do know of Augustine, but not to the extent you do. I have never read his work beyond selected quotes and passages.
I’m not here to attack the Pope. I agree with you that the President, once again, took the bait and came out swinging. The Pope may not have meant his statement to criticize Trump personally, but if he’s been paying attention at all, it’s no surprise that that’s the way Trump heard it. However, that is not a defense - it’s merely an observation.
Being a Christian who does not venerate any man but Christ, I did hear his words as political, because he failed to provide context. His words are not just published for Catholics. The whole world heard them. I certainly did not know there was a particular meaning behind that phrase. Can you understand how that could have been interpreted as simply a criticism of the war, period, which in this country is a very political statement?
I have just had quite a back-and-forth here on Substack with a Jewish man from Israel. They regard the Catholic Church as historically antisemitic - staunchly so. The Pope’s words did nothing to help that. See, they do believe this is a just war - they are fighting for survival. In this day and time, everything is political - like it or not. Does the Pope not understand the world to whom he speaks?
You say that he is perfectly within his appointed role to guide his flock and point out violations of the precepts of the church. You are absolutely right. However, I am asking you to look at his declaration through the eyes of a non-Catholic Christian in America. Look at it through the eyes of a man who has been treated as our president has. His words can be ill-conceived and childish, but he is consistent - he’s a fighter. I guarantee you he does not know of the extensive writing about “just war” by Augustine, and the Pope had to know that.
If the President’s words are sufficient to cost the Republican Party heavily, well, that’s a whole other issue. I pay no attention to what the President says about half the time. I pay attention to what he DOES 100% of the time. That’s why I continue to support him.
I assume that what was happening in this country had to be in violation of the precepts of the Catholic Church. But we heard no rebuke of that from the Vatican. We heard about climate change. We heard about immigration from behind the wall that surrounds the Vatican. But I don’t recall anything that might ruffle the feathers of those who were leading us down a most immoral path.
This is what Batya and many, many others are questioning. He may not be a political person. He may have no political agenda, but the Pope understands the territory he stepped into by choosing those words at the time he chose them. We can argue technicalities, but this is the perception and perception IS reality to flawed humans who have notions about war and morality based on the simple words of the Bible. That book suggests that men must defend the world against suicidal mad men that have no regard for the value of God-given life.
I agree with you that the Pope had to know that his statement would be interpreted as political - as you said, nowadays virtually anything a major leader says gets interpreted that way, regardless of whether the leader is a political or religious figure. That being said, the entire point of Augustine’s writings sixteen centuries ago was to develop the moral arguments for and against the political enterprise of war based on biblical precepts and Christian teaching; if the Pope, then, isn’t supposed to pronounce on events such as the initiation and justifications offered for a major war which could potentially take millions of innocent lives then what in the hell is he supposed to talk about? For a Catholic at least, it would seem to be the Pope’s moral obligation to present his thoughts and guide his flock on this issue; given the inevitable intersections between faith and politics participation in the political process has to be seen as a form of moral action for individual Catholics, and not just when it comes to voting on an issue like abortion where US conservatives seem to be much happier for the Vicar of Christ to speak out publicly.
As for how the Pope’s message was perceived by non-Catholics and Israelis, I can see why they might disagree with his message but I’m not sure it’s the Pope’s job to compromise on what he sees as the truth in order to spare the feelings of non-Catholics. The Church’s “just war theory”, as first elucidated by Augustine and later enlarged by St. Thomas Aquinas and others, specifies among other things that in order for a war to be “just” it should be embarked on by competent authority (i.e., in order to avoid empowering a tyrant who’d understand he could act without accountability; arguably not a criterion met in this case where the war was embarked on without congressional authority), should be resorted to only when an enemy threat is imminent (Iran was still a few years away from constructing a nuclear weapon according to our own intelligence agencies and, more importantly, at least a decade away from building ICBM’s capable of striking the North American continent), and should seek an achievable and realistic goal (how could the administration think that regime change and the surrender of Iran’s nuclear material could be achieved without a land invasion? - regimes rarely collapse in response to an aerial bombardment alone).
Beyond all this lie the questions of distinction and proportionality, i.e., having to do with minimizing collateral harm to civilian populations. The US has so far adhered to these but Trump’s threats to annihilate power plants, desalination facilities, and wipe out Iran’s entire “civilization” would, if carried out, definitely violate these precepts; in the meantime Israel’s actions in southern Lebanon, where IDF soldiers have committed widespread looting, evidently with the full awareness and approval of higher-up’s in their chain of command, and where hundreds of civilians have been killed and roughly a million transformed into refugees, with the entire population of the part of the country south of the Litani River being told bluntly by the Israeli government that they can never be allowed to return to their homes due to Israel’s decision to create a permanently depopulated “buffer zone” there, arguably already have.
I honestly don’t see how the Pope could not have commented on these perceived violations of Catholic doctrine in real time; the impression I have is that his critics aren’t so much upset with what they say is “politicized” timing as with the critical nature of his comments. This is a war of choice embarked on by Israel and the US and, as I’ve tried to point out, very difficult to justify according to “just war” theory. The Pope really had to say something if he saw all this as a violation of those particular teachings.
I disagree strongly with the Pope's message. However, I have an open mind and may reconsider when the Pope welcomes about 1000 Iranian mullahs into to live at the Vatican. After all, we can't choose our brothers and sisters--or just brothers in this case.
Oh... you're simple. I was unsure based on your other comment but you are in fact just DENSE
Thank you Batya. We are only having another leftist activist with a selective memory God bless his salvation!
Saying the pope is woke reveals someone so narrow minded they can only think in one category. The pope is an absolute monarch, and the Catholics in the trump admin are his subjects. If the trump admin thinks the war in Iran is justified, so be it. Justify it in terms of US policy or whatever. What they can’t do is make any authoritative claim regarding the Catholic Church’s position on the matter. JD Vance is just some guy from Ohio (or wherever it is in that area his from), he has absolutely no authority to present his opinion as the Church’s official position. You can argue forever about the nuances of just war theory, blah, blah blah, but the pope is the supreme legislator, executor and judge when it comes to Catholic teaching. There is no appeal against the pope. You disagree with the pope, and you cannot accept his spiritual authority. It happens to people across the political spectrum, but the whole “the pope is woke” is just silly. The pope isn’t being woke, he is exercising his authority as the absolute monarch he is. It is just stupid for these people in the trump admin to think they can argue with the pope on matters of Catholic teaching. It is important that the pope sets the record straight so that people understand that JD Vance et al. have absolutely zero authority in the Catholic Church, an institution that is much older the the US government and one that will outlast it.
Your argument is why there wasn't a Catholic president until Kennedy.
My argument is the pope should do better than eliciting DNC talking points via David Axelrod. Good heavens!
Good thing that didn't happen and you're a hapless moron.
NO KINGS🔥
In my case, you're preaching to the converted. Unilateral peace behavior in the presence of evil pretty much guarantees Evil wins. Not fighting evil when you have the means to do so is a mental illness. For a pope to come out with these positions proves there is something deeply wrong in the Catholic church that they groom an army of clergy into that kind of self-sustaining group think. So, of course, when a pope is elected, he comes from that group of robots.
For a pope to be anti-war is in keeping with thousands of years of Catholic social teaching and thought. Some Irish-Catholic "Daugherty" you are, eh?
Thomas Aquinas (ca. mid 1200's shaped "Just War" thought) and that persisted to about 1930's. So much for "thousands of years." My branch of the Daugherty family departed Ireland and Catholicism about 250 years ago, so we've been completely clear of the pope for a good while. Thank God!
Are YOU dense? Thomas Aquinas was FOR "Just War." The Catholic church was NOT pacifist until the 1930's. Get it now?
Classic headline. You bestow upon us Such blessed alliterations….
Theology is not my strong discipline but I do know Catholic just war doctrine as established by St. Augustine and elaborated by St. Thomas Aquinas. In his initial statement, the Pope seemed oblivious, condemning all wars without distinction a la Yoko Ono. Some other Catholic figures later argued just war theory in defense of the Pope while others argued the other side. This is appropriate activity for Catholics. I am sure his visit from Axelrod right before his statement was just a coincidence.
Oh please, I am a Catholic theologian and canon lawyer. Unlike Vance and the author of this article, I have all my degrees (up to a Ph.D. and a pontifical degree in Catholic theology and law). No need for me to read unreal articles like the one here….lol. I can guarantee that the author of this article has no sense whatsoever of Catholic teaching. All she can do is plug everything into her own little categories, which are few. War is always bad, the Catholic Church concedes some wars are justified even if war always mean there has been a profound failure somewhere. It is pretty comical watching JD Vance stupid himself. The Catholic Church is never going to bend to him or trump, and neither understand it. trump’s name won’t even be a memory, and the Catholic Church will still be going strong…
Is the Pope ever going to make a statement about the constant slaughtering of Christians in Africa by the Vatican's new best friend...Islam? or does he have to go through the powers in the Democrat Party?
He did Robert. You are just a moron.
Ouch...Nothing scarier than a catholic keyboard warrior
"Political Conservative Secular Jew" yeah we're terrified man
Here's an article from a source a PCSJ may accept: https://www.foxnews.com/world/pope-state-department-condemn-latest-massacre-christians-islamist-militants-nigeria
With all the pedo's in the Vatican, you should be terrified
When Pope Leo spoke of woe to those who manipulate religion for their own military, economic and political gain, he must have been speaking of the radical Islamists. Who has done more to use religion for their own gain in the last 50 years?
Is that you Barack?
That’s some pretty strong hate there.
Regarding President Trump AI image:
Many like myself were not offended by a man who works relentlessly to save US🇺🇸 from corruption and evil.
Missionaries (Apostles)
Commissioned to Serve: While "disciple" means learner, Jesus often sent them out (making them apostles, or "sent ones") to heal the sick and preach that the Kingdom of God was arriving.
"I am a retard" saved you a hundred words
The Catholic Church has participated in many wars, inquisitions and colonial actions over its history. It has forgiven warriors of their action's consequences. The Church combined with Kings (real ones) to further their political and theological agendas. AI estimates 0ver the history on religious wars that over 20 million were killed (not adjusted for the increase in global population), The old and the New Testament can be searched in AI in regards to the Bibles view on war. Here is an excerpt:
The Bible doesn’t give a single rule like “war is always right” or “war is always wrong.” Instead:
It records wars, sometimes as justified in context.
It points toward peace as the ultimate ideal.
It teaches individuals to pursue nonviolence, especially in the New Testament.
And we just thought this nut sack would be better than the last nut sack.
Bat.. You quote only 30,000 Iranian protestors...Trump says 45,000.. who is telling the truth? Are you denying the humanity of 15,000 dead protestors? (1/2 by your count)
Batya Ungar-Sargon, a graduate of an Israeli high school, has thoughts on how the Pope, whom Catholics believe is the vicar of Christ, is an antisemite because he DARE condemn violence done in the name of Judaism (Remember: Judaism=Zionism, according to the IHRA definition). News at 11....
Pope Leo is the second progressive Pope. To gain a higher understanding of what that means, read Justice Thomas's recent lecture at UT Austin:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/justice-clarence-thomas-progressivism-seeks-to-replace-the-basic-premises-of-our-form-of-government/ar-AA213vzN?ocid=socialshare
I hate when judges get involved in politics.
Do politics involve the U.S. Constitution and the law?