A wonderful reflection with some theological depth--- not well articulated in the mainstream media.
The thing that I have known of Catholic politicians during my life time has been their reticence to weigh in on matters of theology because they know that they are not in a position to argue especially with the magisterium of the Church. When they have (apparently) disagreed with Church teaching they have tended to remain silent and justified their differences on social and legal grounds. Only Justice Alito has tried to elevate his theological ignorance into law and the result was underwhelming and unpersuasive. The rest of the Catholic justices have upheld capital punishment in spite of the Church's loud pronouncements because they have understood that they are there to look at laws of the government as they are not as any one of them might wish them to be.
Poor JD Vance is not just wrong but entirely out of his depth. He is willing to expose himself as a shallow. As a convert he should have also known that Catholics owe "religious submission of will and intellect" to the ordinary (noninfallible) teaching authority of the Pope. He does not need to praise but he also does not have the standing to debate the issue. Any doubts he has should be discussed between his confessor and not FOXNews hosts. Especially when he does so to defend those making outrageous claims like the President he serves.
This is a scandal for the Church community and a grotesque display of arrogance.
This is note is silly. The “reticence” of speaking out is because most so called Catholics were blatantly defying Church teaching (not apparently) vs what Vance is doing which is disagreeing on prudential matters. This war doesn’t seem to pass just war criterion but it’s at least debatable. Pushing baby murder, sodomy, and transgenderism on the other hand are all mortal sins that aren’t up for debate so you’re comparing apples to bowling balls.
It isn't prudent to debate the Holy Father on social media. Especially when the Pope's statements, while applicable to the current conflict, were general and not aimed specifically at the Trump administration. Haven't seen any Pope in the 20th Century endorse any war that has taken place. All Popes now advocate to for diplomacy and avoiding war regardless of the belligerents. Of course Trump, who considers himself the center of the universe took the Pope's calls for peace as a direct attack upon himself. JD Vance being at toady of the first class felt it his duty to join Trump in his attacks upon the Holy Father of whom Trump "Is not a fan."
The Catechism of the Church promulgated in 1984 under St. John Paul II is clear regarding the qualifications of what a just war is and how Catholic consciences should be guided accordingly. Before voicing opinions on such matters one should consult with ones confessor or spiritual director for guidance. It is obvious from the tone and content of his statements he did not do so.
Hopefully Secretary Rubio's meeting with the Holy Father will bring some clarity for both sides of the debate.
As to the mortal sins of "baby murder, sodomy, and transgenderism" those sins have limited consequences falling upon the sinful choices of individuals all of which are subject to confession and absolution. You are right the comparison is apples to bowling balls but not in the way you think.
An unjust war can mean the deaths and sufferings of millions and destruction to the nations engaged and therefore an awesome moral decision for the governments who chose to go to war. War though not necessarily a sin is the gate through which a multitude of mortal sins can materialize and the evil consequences that flow from those sins. And if corruption, lies and deception are the foundation of the justification for the war the whole moral ground turns into quicksand.
You realize that “consulting” with a spiritual director or confessor isn’t enough right, you have to actually repent of your ways and actions, which no pro abortion politician has unless they change their stance. Publicly advocating for the slaughter of innocents is a grave mortal sin that’s not up for debate and to advocate for it severs you from the Church. As for if it’s damaging abortion it’s estimated there were 1.3 billion since 1980 which is far more than any war ever. To dismiss this would just betray this a personal choice that’s not important betrays someone as simply rejecting Church teaching. As for social media, Trump has attacked Pope Leo and he should be chastised for that, but Vance hasn’t “debated” on social media he said the Pope and President both need to speak carefully and they have disagreements and made a conciliatory post.
My larger point is that "communicating" on the antisocial media itself is bad form for president or pontiff. I would strongly advise Pope Leo to cease and desist interacting with anyone through these morally corrupt media. Same for the curia, bishops and priests. Beyond announcing mass schedules, hours for confessions, and church social events and fund raisers everything plays into the Devil's hands and breeds scandal.
As to abortion in a secular and pluralistic society where opinions about whether abortion is in fact the taking of a human life and the only thing legal prohibition actually accomplishes is to make abortions, which are medical procedures, less safe and criminalizing people after the fact. Abortions WILL happen. There may be no constitutional right to abortion as Roe v. Wade wrongly postulated but neither is the state in a position to decide when life begins, at what stage and conditions an abortion may be necessary, and replace itself in the conscience of the individual woman.
Abortion may be homicide but to make it equal to the homicide of a 14 year old child that is integrated into society, a family, has consciousness of life and knows it has a life is just grotesque. It may be equal in the opinion of a Catholic believer who should never seek or counsel others to have an abortion. Catholics should do everything possible to discourage abortion. Helping women to choose life. They should advocate for creating the widest possible safety net to encourage the flourishing of all human life preborn and born.
BUT in a constitutional Republic where law and not religious opinion decides what should be subject to state control there is an open debate as to what is most prudent with regard to abortion. I know of not one single Catholic politician who ADVOCATES for abortion. Most hold to the "legal, safe and rare" standard with regard to the law. Which in a secular and pluralistic democracy may be the best for which we can hope.
I know you want the lash of crime to fall on baby killers, sodomites and transgender people but is that really going to save the preborn? Is criminalizing and punishing others based solely on our own religious convictions really going to advance a culture of life? The Church lays out a culture of life from cradle to grave it does not begin and end with abortion. It embraces the innocent and the guilty it is a path of love and conversion and not coercion and retribution.
Our Catholic justices overturned Roe not because abortion is a sin. They overturned Roe because there is no constitutional right to have an abortion. It was the right decision. They have never considered overturning the death penalty even though it is part and parcel of the culture of death because as a matter of law the death penalty is accepted as an option for states to decide for themselves. It is highly unlikely that these same justices would somehow decide that states which permit abortion are violating the Constitution. When, and if, there is ever a constitutional amendment enshrining the right to life for the preborn then they would have grounds for denying individual states the right to choose their own abortion policies.
While prochoice Catholic politicians may cause scandal within the Church most of the "pro-life" Evangelical politicians are merely virtue signaling and if one could dig deep into their history one would find plenty of hypocrisy on the issue. Even if they are right on the issue how does that square with their commitment to the culture of death on every other issue?
I think it’s fair to say social media is beneath the dignity of the office of the Papacy and lends itself to narrative manipulation so I agree with you there. As for prudence on the matter of legality of abortion, it’s actually not up for debate. If someone said well incest, rape, slavery, or forced marriage (or any grave evil) happens therefore as Catholic we can’t make it illegal, but just work to make it rare, that would be incorrect and immoral because the state doesn’t have the right to violate natural law no matter what people want. Also the “safe, legal, rare” and “pro choice” is a relic of the 90s and isn’t even relevant anymore. Now people say “shout your abortion” and Massachusetts is trying to defund crisis pregnancy centers so the idea it’s just a hard decision that is morally ambiguous that we all need to think about and have resources for no matter what you choice is false and is a relic of a certain culture. Progressives has correctly stated it’s either totally fine so it should either be safe and legal or bad and should be banned. The middle ground position is unstable and incoherent. As for personal history of politicians or the GOPs flaws on other issues, that’s fine and true in limited cases, but the idea it’s at all comparable to the mass slaughter of millions of innocents really is laughable.
The first amendment to the USA constitution in its very first line states that congress may make no law establishing a religion . Therefore , what the Pope , or any minister of any religion has to say is meaningless. No religion controls the USA . Every citizen has the free exercise to worship any supernatural being that he or she wishes too but that is all. No religion rules in the USA rules .
So who cares what the pope says ? Catholicism , christianity , Judaism Hinduism nor the muslims has no say in what course the USA government pursues .
I don’t believe the Pope was demanding to “establish” his church in the US, nor was he trying to “control” the country, nor was he trying to “rule” the US, all the things you seem to insinuate him of doing. He was doing exactly what JD Vance said a religious leader should do, namely attending to “moral” matters (and not matters of state). Except that Vance, a recent convert to Catholicism from a fundamentalist Protestant denomination, does not himself know how the Catholic Church views “morals”.
There is a complete separation of the church and the state in the USA . The Pope should confine his opinions to his parishioners . The rest of us simply do not care .
What is the Popes moral leadership . The catholic religion is responsible for more murders in the past 3000 years than any other religion . Peace ? They ruled with an iron hand for 2500 years . Their only morality is to love your brother . Did they ever live by that doctrine ? No.
You are making a category error. All religions call on people to live within thoughtfulness and care for others. This is the foundation of human flourishing. The flourishing of all is a precondition for the flourishing of each. To be ignorant of this, or worse, to ignore this truth is to abandon the human condition altogether. It’s a recipe for barbarism.
The Declaration of independence and the Constitution of the USA created and protect human flourishing. If it were not for them the USA would be ruled by a religious tyranny .
I agree. My point was aimed at a view of religion that ties it to merely ‘national politics. I am a citizen of a country that is far more secular than the US and which strictly prohibits religious tests for any public office.
Again , religion does not rule in the USA . All men and women are created equal in their inalienable individual rights to their own life , liberty, property and pursuit of happiness . We the American people hire the government to protect those rights . That is why we have a constitution and a bill of rights .
Those so called religious leaders are not the people leaders . They are nothing but proselytizers for their particular faiths which are not based on reason but on beliefs that do not not correspond to anything in reality.
Sure. But if the Constitutional Rights can’t be enforced what use are they? How long did Jim Crow rule before a Law promulgated by the US Congress made it illegal? Now the USSC is undoing those gains in order to protect a President they prefer. US Constitutional rights are subject to a Court appointed by a very gerrymandered Senate. Your democratic exceptionalism is a joke.
Linda , what you state is absolutely true ., However . Even though a goodly number of times the citizen will very often have to challenge the court to make sure that his individual rights are protected , at least we have those rights that we can fight for . It is better than living in any other country where the people are not free and do not have inalienable individual rights such as China, North Korea , Iran , and most other countries. The USA is the greatest country in the world . Some to bit religious unelected leader from another country Such as the Pope should keep his mouth shut ,when it comes to passing moral judgement based on a non-existent God , on a leader in a free constitutional country.
The US most assuredly isn’t the greatest country in the world. The fact that this idiocy is frequently trotted out whenever anyone dares to criticise the US attests to that fact.
It doesn't make a lot of sense for Vance, as a Catholic and head of a Christian party whose members often say that theirs is a Christian nation, to dismiss the pope so easily.
(or rather, it doesn't make a lot of sense until you realize that the Party doesn't much like the teachings of Jesus)
While in theory that all sounds great, reality is quite different. The "government" isn't something that exists separately from people, it is a construct that exists of people and rules governing said people. People have opinions informed by beliefs and experiences. There was no way to entirely divorce government from the people who it is comprised of. That doesn't mean every attempt shouldn't be made to resist the enshrinement laws that are outwardly based on the religious teachings of a given sect, but it is impossible to completely isolate government from religious influence.
The USA Government is hired by the American people to protect their inalienable individual rights to their own life , liberty , property and pursuit of happiness .
The government is not the peoples master but rather their hired servants. That is exactly why we have a constitution and a bill of rights. The constitution and the bill of rights tell the government what they cannot and what they can do. Both are limitations on the government: not the people.
You could say, if you were trying to be polite, that JV Dunce is the most ideologically flexible politician in US history. Or … you could just be truthful and say he’s a sycophantic status-obsessed narcissist who once said tRump is America’s Hitler and will literally do anything to get power - up to and including cosplaying Catholicism. Beware of the 25th amendment - JV might be even worse than the Mad King.
Weird because I could have sworn after all the names you called Bush McCain and Romney Trump was literally Hitler or a fascist yet the new guy is worse huh 🤔. Maybe you’ll just always say that about the newest guy
I’ll give credit where credit is due, JV Dunce is more clever than the Tangerine Turd. But both are equally narcissistic authoritarian. Pick yer poison.
The difficulty I have with just war theology in the modern world is the unprecedented and devastating first strike power of nuclear weapons.
How do we reconcile the command that all efforts at peaceful resolution must fail and aggression must take place before a counterattack is just, with the reality that a single nuclear strike can make the concept of a just war moot by instantly destroying a peaceful adversary’s ability to defend itself?
Do the potentially suicidal consequences of unsuccessfully pursuing peace render a preemptive attack just if nuclear aggression appears to be imminent, even if there might still be some arguable chance that war could be avoided?
But the ideas that the Pope represents are also un-American so it's not clear what the point of this article is beyond tribalism. I'm also pretty sure that theology is not a valid method of argument.
Opposing authoritarianism can’t just stop at opposing Trump. It means rejecting all authoritarian ideas. That includes religious collectivism from figures like the Pope and secular collectivism from Democrats.
What actually matters is consistently defending liberal values: a rights-protecting government and capitalism. Liberal values are secular and individualistic.
JD Vance’s attitude is clearly un-Catholic, but can it still be claimed to be un-American? I am afraid that this attitude is perceived as very American indeed by many countries around the world. Perhaps it is time to redefine, of reestablish what - in moral terms - it means to be American. And I don’t mean on an individual level of politeness, or helpfulness, or community, but as a World power
I was merely responding to your style of questioning 🙂 I am not an American voter, so non-partizan. The article shows JD Vance is un-catholic, so it is really not my task to prove it, merely to agree with it, but in the spirit of cooperation: he tries to lecture the pope on morality and theology… That is a red flag right there
A wonderful reflection with some theological depth--- not well articulated in the mainstream media.
The thing that I have known of Catholic politicians during my life time has been their reticence to weigh in on matters of theology because they know that they are not in a position to argue especially with the magisterium of the Church. When they have (apparently) disagreed with Church teaching they have tended to remain silent and justified their differences on social and legal grounds. Only Justice Alito has tried to elevate his theological ignorance into law and the result was underwhelming and unpersuasive. The rest of the Catholic justices have upheld capital punishment in spite of the Church's loud pronouncements because they have understood that they are there to look at laws of the government as they are not as any one of them might wish them to be.
Poor JD Vance is not just wrong but entirely out of his depth. He is willing to expose himself as a shallow. As a convert he should have also known that Catholics owe "religious submission of will and intellect" to the ordinary (noninfallible) teaching authority of the Pope. He does not need to praise but he also does not have the standing to debate the issue. Any doubts he has should be discussed between his confessor and not FOXNews hosts. Especially when he does so to defend those making outrageous claims like the President he serves.
This is a scandal for the Church community and a grotesque display of arrogance.
This is note is silly. The “reticence” of speaking out is because most so called Catholics were blatantly defying Church teaching (not apparently) vs what Vance is doing which is disagreeing on prudential matters. This war doesn’t seem to pass just war criterion but it’s at least debatable. Pushing baby murder, sodomy, and transgenderism on the other hand are all mortal sins that aren’t up for debate so you’re comparing apples to bowling balls.
It isn't prudent to debate the Holy Father on social media. Especially when the Pope's statements, while applicable to the current conflict, were general and not aimed specifically at the Trump administration. Haven't seen any Pope in the 20th Century endorse any war that has taken place. All Popes now advocate to for diplomacy and avoiding war regardless of the belligerents. Of course Trump, who considers himself the center of the universe took the Pope's calls for peace as a direct attack upon himself. JD Vance being at toady of the first class felt it his duty to join Trump in his attacks upon the Holy Father of whom Trump "Is not a fan."
The Catechism of the Church promulgated in 1984 under St. John Paul II is clear regarding the qualifications of what a just war is and how Catholic consciences should be guided accordingly. Before voicing opinions on such matters one should consult with ones confessor or spiritual director for guidance. It is obvious from the tone and content of his statements he did not do so.
Hopefully Secretary Rubio's meeting with the Holy Father will bring some clarity for both sides of the debate.
As to the mortal sins of "baby murder, sodomy, and transgenderism" those sins have limited consequences falling upon the sinful choices of individuals all of which are subject to confession and absolution. You are right the comparison is apples to bowling balls but not in the way you think.
An unjust war can mean the deaths and sufferings of millions and destruction to the nations engaged and therefore an awesome moral decision for the governments who chose to go to war. War though not necessarily a sin is the gate through which a multitude of mortal sins can materialize and the evil consequences that flow from those sins. And if corruption, lies and deception are the foundation of the justification for the war the whole moral ground turns into quicksand.
You realize that “consulting” with a spiritual director or confessor isn’t enough right, you have to actually repent of your ways and actions, which no pro abortion politician has unless they change their stance. Publicly advocating for the slaughter of innocents is a grave mortal sin that’s not up for debate and to advocate for it severs you from the Church. As for if it’s damaging abortion it’s estimated there were 1.3 billion since 1980 which is far more than any war ever. To dismiss this would just betray this a personal choice that’s not important betrays someone as simply rejecting Church teaching. As for social media, Trump has attacked Pope Leo and he should be chastised for that, but Vance hasn’t “debated” on social media he said the Pope and President both need to speak carefully and they have disagreements and made a conciliatory post.
My larger point is that "communicating" on the antisocial media itself is bad form for president or pontiff. I would strongly advise Pope Leo to cease and desist interacting with anyone through these morally corrupt media. Same for the curia, bishops and priests. Beyond announcing mass schedules, hours for confessions, and church social events and fund raisers everything plays into the Devil's hands and breeds scandal.
As to abortion in a secular and pluralistic society where opinions about whether abortion is in fact the taking of a human life and the only thing legal prohibition actually accomplishes is to make abortions, which are medical procedures, less safe and criminalizing people after the fact. Abortions WILL happen. There may be no constitutional right to abortion as Roe v. Wade wrongly postulated but neither is the state in a position to decide when life begins, at what stage and conditions an abortion may be necessary, and replace itself in the conscience of the individual woman.
Abortion may be homicide but to make it equal to the homicide of a 14 year old child that is integrated into society, a family, has consciousness of life and knows it has a life is just grotesque. It may be equal in the opinion of a Catholic believer who should never seek or counsel others to have an abortion. Catholics should do everything possible to discourage abortion. Helping women to choose life. They should advocate for creating the widest possible safety net to encourage the flourishing of all human life preborn and born.
BUT in a constitutional Republic where law and not religious opinion decides what should be subject to state control there is an open debate as to what is most prudent with regard to abortion. I know of not one single Catholic politician who ADVOCATES for abortion. Most hold to the "legal, safe and rare" standard with regard to the law. Which in a secular and pluralistic democracy may be the best for which we can hope.
I know you want the lash of crime to fall on baby killers, sodomites and transgender people but is that really going to save the preborn? Is criminalizing and punishing others based solely on our own religious convictions really going to advance a culture of life? The Church lays out a culture of life from cradle to grave it does not begin and end with abortion. It embraces the innocent and the guilty it is a path of love and conversion and not coercion and retribution.
Our Catholic justices overturned Roe not because abortion is a sin. They overturned Roe because there is no constitutional right to have an abortion. It was the right decision. They have never considered overturning the death penalty even though it is part and parcel of the culture of death because as a matter of law the death penalty is accepted as an option for states to decide for themselves. It is highly unlikely that these same justices would somehow decide that states which permit abortion are violating the Constitution. When, and if, there is ever a constitutional amendment enshrining the right to life for the preborn then they would have grounds for denying individual states the right to choose their own abortion policies.
While prochoice Catholic politicians may cause scandal within the Church most of the "pro-life" Evangelical politicians are merely virtue signaling and if one could dig deep into their history one would find plenty of hypocrisy on the issue. Even if they are right on the issue how does that square with their commitment to the culture of death on every other issue?
I think it’s fair to say social media is beneath the dignity of the office of the Papacy and lends itself to narrative manipulation so I agree with you there. As for prudence on the matter of legality of abortion, it’s actually not up for debate. If someone said well incest, rape, slavery, or forced marriage (or any grave evil) happens therefore as Catholic we can’t make it illegal, but just work to make it rare, that would be incorrect and immoral because the state doesn’t have the right to violate natural law no matter what people want. Also the “safe, legal, rare” and “pro choice” is a relic of the 90s and isn’t even relevant anymore. Now people say “shout your abortion” and Massachusetts is trying to defund crisis pregnancy centers so the idea it’s just a hard decision that is morally ambiguous that we all need to think about and have resources for no matter what you choice is false and is a relic of a certain culture. Progressives has correctly stated it’s either totally fine so it should either be safe and legal or bad and should be banned. The middle ground position is unstable and incoherent. As for personal history of politicians or the GOPs flaws on other issues, that’s fine and true in limited cases, but the idea it’s at all comparable to the mass slaughter of millions of innocents really is laughable.
The first amendment to the USA constitution in its very first line states that congress may make no law establishing a religion . Therefore , what the Pope , or any minister of any religion has to say is meaningless. No religion controls the USA . Every citizen has the free exercise to worship any supernatural being that he or she wishes too but that is all. No religion rules in the USA rules .
So who cares what the pope says ? Catholicism , christianity , Judaism Hinduism nor the muslims has no say in what course the USA government pursues .
I don’t believe the Pope was demanding to “establish” his church in the US, nor was he trying to “control” the country, nor was he trying to “rule” the US, all the things you seem to insinuate him of doing. He was doing exactly what JD Vance said a religious leader should do, namely attending to “moral” matters (and not matters of state). Except that Vance, a recent convert to Catholicism from a fundamentalist Protestant denomination, does not himself know how the Catholic Church views “morals”.
There is a complete separation of the church and the state in the USA . The Pope should confine his opinions to his parishioners . The rest of us simply do not care .
What you are suggesting is that the Pope not only refrain from exercising his moral leadership but also his free speech rights.
What is the Popes moral leadership . The catholic religion is responsible for more murders in the past 3000 years than any other religion . Peace ? They ruled with an iron hand for 2500 years . Their only morality is to love your brother . Did they ever live by that doctrine ? No.
1. Trump would not have won the presidency without the Catholic vote.
2. Conservatives have never respected the separation of church and state, claiming to represent Christian values.
3. alienate Catholics is enough to cause the Republican Party to lose future elections.
You are making a category error. All religions call on people to live within thoughtfulness and care for others. This is the foundation of human flourishing. The flourishing of all is a precondition for the flourishing of each. To be ignorant of this, or worse, to ignore this truth is to abandon the human condition altogether. It’s a recipe for barbarism.
The Declaration of independence and the Constitution of the USA created and protect human flourishing. If it were not for them the USA would be ruled by a religious tyranny .
I agree. My point was aimed at a view of religion that ties it to merely ‘national politics. I am a citizen of a country that is far more secular than the US and which strictly prohibits religious tests for any public office.
All of those groups are part of the electorate; therefore, what they say, or advocate for or against, is not meaningless.
Again , religion does not rule in the USA . All men and women are created equal in their inalienable individual rights to their own life , liberty, property and pursuit of happiness . We the American people hire the government to protect those rights . That is why we have a constitution and a bill of rights .
Those so called religious leaders are not the people leaders . They are nothing but proselytizers for their particular faiths which are not based on reason but on beliefs that do not not correspond to anything in reality.
Sure. But if the Constitutional Rights can’t be enforced what use are they? How long did Jim Crow rule before a Law promulgated by the US Congress made it illegal? Now the USSC is undoing those gains in order to protect a President they prefer. US Constitutional rights are subject to a Court appointed by a very gerrymandered Senate. Your democratic exceptionalism is a joke.
Linda , what you state is absolutely true ., However . Even though a goodly number of times the citizen will very often have to challenge the court to make sure that his individual rights are protected , at least we have those rights that we can fight for . It is better than living in any other country where the people are not free and do not have inalienable individual rights such as China, North Korea , Iran , and most other countries. The USA is the greatest country in the world . Some to bit religious unelected leader from another country Such as the Pope should keep his mouth shut ,when it comes to passing moral judgement based on a non-existent God , on a leader in a free constitutional country.
The US most assuredly isn’t the greatest country in the world. The fact that this idiocy is frequently trotted out whenever anyone dares to criticise the US attests to that fact.
It doesn't make a lot of sense for Vance, as a Catholic and head of a Christian party whose members often say that theirs is a Christian nation, to dismiss the pope so easily.
(or rather, it doesn't make a lot of sense until you realize that the Party doesn't much like the teachings of Jesus)
When did he dismiss the Pope easily? Also the Catholic Church has many limits on the Popes power so it’s not as simple as what he says goes
While in theory that all sounds great, reality is quite different. The "government" isn't something that exists separately from people, it is a construct that exists of people and rules governing said people. People have opinions informed by beliefs and experiences. There was no way to entirely divorce government from the people who it is comprised of. That doesn't mean every attempt shouldn't be made to resist the enshrinement laws that are outwardly based on the religious teachings of a given sect, but it is impossible to completely isolate government from religious influence.
The USA Government is hired by the American people to protect their inalienable individual rights to their own life , liberty , property and pursuit of happiness .
The government is not the peoples master but rather their hired servants. That is exactly why we have a constitution and a bill of rights. The constitution and the bill of rights tell the government what they cannot and what they can do. Both are limitations on the government: not the people.
You could say, if you were trying to be polite, that JV Dunce is the most ideologically flexible politician in US history. Or … you could just be truthful and say he’s a sycophantic status-obsessed narcissist who once said tRump is America’s Hitler and will literally do anything to get power - up to and including cosplaying Catholicism. Beware of the 25th amendment - JV might be even worse than the Mad King.
Weird because I could have sworn after all the names you called Bush McCain and Romney Trump was literally Hitler or a fascist yet the new guy is worse huh 🤔. Maybe you’ll just always say that about the newest guy
I’ll give credit where credit is due, JV Dunce is more clever than the Tangerine Turd. But both are equally narcissistic authoritarian. Pick yer poison.
Well reasoned, discerning commentary.
The difficulty I have with just war theology in the modern world is the unprecedented and devastating first strike power of nuclear weapons.
How do we reconcile the command that all efforts at peaceful resolution must fail and aggression must take place before a counterattack is just, with the reality that a single nuclear strike can make the concept of a just war moot by instantly destroying a peaceful adversary’s ability to defend itself?
Do the potentially suicidal consequences of unsuccessfully pursuing peace render a preemptive attack just if nuclear aggression appears to be imminent, even if there might still be some arguable chance that war could be avoided?
But the ideas that the Pope represents are also un-American so it's not clear what the point of this article is beyond tribalism. I'm also pretty sure that theology is not a valid method of argument.
Opposing authoritarianism can’t just stop at opposing Trump. It means rejecting all authoritarian ideas. That includes religious collectivism from figures like the Pope and secular collectivism from Democrats.
What actually matters is consistently defending liberal values: a rights-protecting government and capitalism. Liberal values are secular and individualistic.
JD Vance’s attitude is clearly un-Catholic, but can it still be claimed to be un-American? I am afraid that this attitude is perceived as very American indeed by many countries around the world. Perhaps it is time to redefine, of reestablish what - in moral terms - it means to be American. And I don’t mean on an individual level of politeness, or helpfulness, or community, but as a World power
How is it un-Catholic?
How is it not?
Well you claimed it’s clearly un-Catholic so do you have anything to back up that claim? Would you consider Joe Biden clearly un-Catholic?
Would you?
So you just want to deflect instead of answering the claim you said was “obvious”
I was merely responding to your style of questioning 🙂 I am not an American voter, so non-partizan. The article shows JD Vance is un-catholic, so it is really not my task to prove it, merely to agree with it, but in the spirit of cooperation: he tries to lecture the pope on morality and theology… That is a red flag right there