"There is a way past the absurd and deeply divisive 'war' between the President and the Pope, which has been enthusiastically ginned up by the press. And it is indicated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 2309 to be precise. 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 these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.' The assumption is that the just war principles function, to use the technical term, as heuristic devices, designed to guide the practical decision-making of those civil authorities who have to adjudicate matters of war and peace.

The role of the Church, therefore, is to call for peace and to urge that any conflict be strictly circumscribed by the moral constraints of the just war criteria. But it is not the role of the Church to evaluate whether a particular war is just or unjust. That appraisal belongs to the civil authorities, who, one presumes, have requisite knowledge of conditions on the ground. So, is the war in question truly the last resort? Is there really a balance between the good to be attained and the destruction caused by the war? Are combatants and non-combatants being properly distinguished in the waging of the conflict? Do the belligerents have right intention? Is there a reasonable hope of success? The posing of those questions—indeed the insistence upon their moral relevance—belongs rightly to the Church, but the answering of them belongs to the civil authorities.

The Pope has said, on numerous occasions, that he is not a politician and that his role is not the determination of any nation's foreign policy. But he has just as clearly said that he will continue to speak for peace and for moral constraint. In making both of these claims, he is operating perfectly within the framework of paragraph 2309 of the Catechism. If we understand that the Pope and the President have qualitatively different roles to play in the determination of moral action in regard to war, we can, I hope, extricate ourselves from the completely unhelpful narrative of 'Pope vs. President.'”

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

No one says ignore human rights abuses.

But maybe - just maybe - attacking is not the best way to address them.

(no message)

That is an absurd position. It means that the whole just-war tradition is pointless. The Church is a moral actor, and has the responsibility to make moral judgments.

There is no way to suggest that the current war meets the criteria to be considered just. Countries do unjust things all the time...but we should not pretend that it is morally OK.

promoting peace "inappropriate and disrespectful"...but won't stand up for the Pope's "Prudential Judgement" that Trump is seeking war rather than peace...as also judged by the USCCB. In essence, Bishop Barron, with that statement in the OP, just "Washes His Hands" of the matter and defers to Trump, or supposedly any President. IMO, the Bishop is more concerned with staying in DJT's good graces and remaining on his Religious Liberty Commission, than he is with promoting peace and morality.

That's my favorite.

(no message)

peaceful resolution...in the case of Iran pursuing nuclear weapons, it's what Obama accomplished after two years of negotiations...i.e. the JCPOA...the agreement that Trump tore up, thus allowing Iran to increase enrichment of its uranium to near weapons grade (60%). In essence, Trump (with urging from Netanyahu) planted the seed for this unjust and poorly planned war. Pope Leo is justified in calling out Trump for his extremely poor judgement...which you seem to agree with.

(no message)

(no message)

btw...He's been a strong supporter of Democratic causes, while criticizing Donald Trump and his sycophants...

Thanks for mentioning such a great artist and group...