"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.

There are all kinds of weird moral discussions that are prompted when you start imagining Jesus as the leader of a nation (something the Devil tempted him with, but he actively avoided) ... or even imagining Jesus as a lobbyist (one of the favorite ways for Democrats to imagine Jesus, as they pretend that Jesus was calling for government action instead of for private charity, for example). Generally speaking, Jesus never commented on government action, other than to say let it be. The Church that he established does, though, but although the Church has called for war in the past to halt the advance of Islam, it generally does not declare wars to be just or not under the Just War Theory of morality.

One of your favorite tactics is to argue that there is "no evidence" for something, or "no arguments can be made" for something, when every one can see that there is often at least "some evidence" when you say there is none (even if you could argue that the evidence is weak) ... or even when the opposing side can easily make "some arguments" against your position. Your personal beliefs (usually biased) about the strength of particular arguments does not mean those arguments do not exist at all. Your tactics in this regard basically come down to the logical fallacy of arguing from authority: "I am an expert, and I say there are no arguments, so there are none." But, everyone sees you being wrong all the time. It would be more persuasive if you actually engaged in discussion, instead of dismissing discussion you deem not worthy of your time...more persuasive, that is, than merely arguing from authority.

(no message)

More innocents would die.

That is the moral justification.

This is the problem with trying to make a moral argument without knowing the consequences of the actions. If there's a way to liberate Iran without a long drawn out war, that would be the best outcome. And would also be the highest moral goal.

…given his second term…thanks to inherently thoughtless MAGAs.

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.

That is why you are also not answering, responding instead with bluster.

let’s see you justify why DJT chose war instead of the negotiations that were just getting started…

Trump rightly perceives that Pope Leo is not cheering him on…but given his Malignant Narcissism there is no chance of DJT getting the message.

(no message)

(no message)

(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...