The Tsu-Cheng Yuan (资政院), China's new National Assembly, demanded a cabinet of ministers without Manchu nobility, an amnesty for persons who committed political offenses, and a permanent constitution.
I started this post yesterday, early in the morning. I didn't finish it, however, as I was mostly waiting for it to get a little later so that I could pack up and go deer hunting. By today, the following day, the story has already significantly moved on, showing I guess how quickly the news cycle moves.
Anyhow, let's start here:
57. Building a world of respect for human life and dignity, where justice and peace prevail, requires more than just political commitment. Individuals, families, businesses, community organizations, and governments all have a role to play. Participation in political life in light of fundamental moral principles is an essential duty for every Catholic and all people of good will.
58. The Church is involved in the political process but is not partisan. The Church cannot champion any candidate or party. Our cause is the defense of human life and dignity and the protection of the weak and vulnerable.
59. The Church is engaged in the political process but should not be used.We welcome dialogue with political leaders and candidates; we seek to engage and persuade public officials. Events and photo ops cannot substitute for serious dialogue
60. The Church is principled but not ideological. As St. John Paul II wrote in his encyclical,Sollicitudo Rei Socialis,The Church’s social doctrine is not . . . an ideology, but rather the accurate formulation of the results of a careful reflection on the complex realities of human existence, in society and in the international order, in the light of faith and of the Church’s tradition. Its main aim is to interpret these realities, determining their conformity with or divergence from the lines of the Gospel teaching on man and his vocation, a vocation which is at once earthly and transcendent; its aim is thus to guide Christian behavior. It therefore belongs to the field, not of ideology, but of theology and particularly of moral theology. (Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, no. 41)We cannot compromise basic principles or moral teaching. We are committed to clarity about our moral teaching and to civility. In public life, it is important to practice the virtues of charity and justice that are at the core of our Tradition. We should work with others in a variety of ways to advance our moral principles.
61. In light of these principles and the blessings we share as part of a free and democratic nation, we bishops vigorously repeat our call for a renewed kind of politics:
•Focused more on moral principles than on the latest poll
•Focused more on the needs of the weak than on benefits for the strong
•Focused more on the pursuit of the common good than on the demands of narrow interests
62. This kind of political participation reflects the social teaching of our Church and the best traditions of our nation.
FormingConsciencesFaithfulCitizenshipforA Call to Political Responsibility from the Catholic Bishops of the United State
My heart just sank when I check my computer the other morning and saw this:
I have traditionally been extremely careful about criticizing Bishops on this site, and not just Catholic bishops. I don't know if I've ever criticized any bishops at all. Perhaps those of the English Church at the time of Henry VIII, sort of. That's about it, and I don't think I really even did that. Catholics owe deference to their Bishops, and for the most part we probably owe deference to Orthodox Bishops on most things as well. So, suffice it to say, this is unusual.
The Church does not hold, however, that we can never do so. Respect to the Bishop and the Bishop's office is owed when we do, however.
Recently I've seen a lot of criticism aimed at one particular Bishop, the Bishop of Rome, which has been made by right wing Catholics which is simply shocking in nature. Probably sinful as well. Pope Francis received that sort of criticism all the time from the Catholic right. I never openly criticized either and certainly have not Pope Leo. I was not a huge fan of Pope Francis, but I'm also not in his shoes in any fashion so my criticism, when it was made, was fairly muted. There was a little, however.
Here I fear I must offer some criticism. I'm not the only one who is doing so. I'd note the reaction to his photo and event, which was organized reportedly by somebody from The Heritage Foundation, has been pretty severe. The White House itself issued a statement saying from its Faith Director stating that the meeting was:
[N]ot politics. This is policy in action ending with meaningful Prayer with & for the President. He welcomes prayer in the Oval Office regularly- on and off camera. People of faith have a VOICE @potus @whitehouse Faith Office. This is not just a ‘photo op’ These are Catholic Archbishops and Bishops who spent time talking with us about important issues on religious freedom, school choice, family tax credits, religious visas, and life. They are leaders within their communities and have a seat at the table
It's surprising, really, to see the White House try to say something isn't political, which shows how much upset there must be.
The furor caused Archbishop Golka, who delivered the prayer at the meeting, to issue a statement, which said:
Archbishop Golka and other bishops meet with President Trump
Archbishop James R. Golka joined fellow Roman Catholic bishops in meeting with President Trump and led a prayer in the Oval Office, asking God’s blessing upon the president and our nation. His prayer expressed gratitude for “our beautiful nation” and asked the Holy Spirit “to surround our country to protect us against any influence of evil.” With respect for the office of the president, the Archdiocese of Denver welcomes continued conversation on the sanctity of life, from conception to natural death, and the God-given dignity of every person. We invite the faithful to pray for our nation and its leaders, trusting in Christ’s mercy and guidance.
Praying for those in public office is a longstanding Catholic practice, rooted in St. Paul’s instruction to pray for all who hold authority (1 Tim 2:1-2). It is not an endorsement of any specific candidate or party.
The Bishop's statement is completely correct in what it says. The problem is that every single thing that the White House does is political, and is designed to serve the politics of Donald Trump.
The Church is engaged in the political process but should not be used.
FormingConsciencesFaithfulCitizenshipforA Call to Political Responsibility from the Catholic Bishops of the United States.
I think the Archbishop's appearance at the White House was sincere and not intended to be political. I also think it was naive.
Certain Catholic and Orthodox Bishops have been seen regularly in the presnece of Donald Trump during this administration. I've held back any commentary on it, but it bothers me enormously. There is no evidence whatsoever that Donald Trump is a Christian of any kind. The evidnece is that Trump will use Christians in order to advance his cause, which is principally Donald Trump. As we've noted here there are two Christian camps in hte Trump orbit, one being far right Evangelicalism and the other being the very conservative more traditional, and indeed at least somewhat Apostolic Church influenced, National Conservatism/Christian Nationalism.
The Catholic mainstream is not really part of any of this.
People of faith have in many instances voted for Trump because of their deeply held views, which again differ enormously in the case of Apostolic Christians and Evangelicals. A lot of the Evangelicals see Trump as a Divinely appointed figure, a latter day Cyrus the Great, who will lead the United States into a position as a new Israel.
Catholics think nothing of the sort.
What a lot of Catholics think is that Trump has been uniquely effective on a selection of moral issues that are of deep concern to Catholics, abortion being one, but the fable of transgenderism being another. And frankly he has, although the role of Southern Baptist Mitch McConnell in creating a Supreme Court that eliminated Roe is seemingly underappreciated. Trump has taken on transgenderism this go around.
At the same time, he's interestingly pretty much lost interest in the other moral issues that are in the air. Homosexual marriage is something the Church condemns, but Trump's been silent on it and indeed one of the principal cabinet members, Scott Bessent, is in such a purported union. Trump's administration from time to time embraces the weirdness of pronatalism and as part of that even Catholic J.D. Vance came out for IVF, which the Church condemns.
And this two years has been a parade of horrors on other moral fronts. The administration clearly favors the death penalty, which is immoral. It's launched wars without a declaration which cannot possibly square with the Just War Theory. It's murdered people on the high seas under suspicion that they're drug runners without giving them the benefit of a trial. And it's been abusive to immigrants no matter what you think of their legal status.
And even at this late date, it seems to escape a lot of people that Trump's administration is not just odd, as Trump is odd, but that backing Trump have their own, very radical, agendas. The Evangelical far right, in quite a few instances, wants a Calvinist nation and see Trump as a vehicle to get there. National Conservatives see liberal democracy as a failure and are quasi Francoist in their outlook.
Catholics really haven't seen anything like this since the 1930s. When they last did, the Church ultimately acted against it. Pope Pius XI condemned Action française in 1926. The Church condemned the Belgian Rexist movement as a danger to the Church and the nation in 1937. Fr. Coughlin was famously silenced in 1942. It's no wonder, therefore, that a lot of people, including a lot of Bishops, are not aware of the back currents in this administration.
And they may also simply not be aware that everything Trump does is political, or perhaps more accurately, self promotional. They likely sincerely believed that this wouldn't turn into an odd photo op, but somebody should have informed them. There was no way that a gathering like this wasn't going to be used by the Trump Administration to try to suggest that Catholic Bishops are in his corner, with the suggestion being that Catholics should keep that in mind as they head to the polls.
At any rate, this seems to have already passed.
Which is a good thing.
When the Trump era ends, and it's drawing to an end now, Evangelical Protestantism is going to be very badly damaged, even perhaps beyond the point of recovery. The ignorant and scrivener lazy like to claim that Trump has "Christian" support, which is far too broad of claim and very inaccurate. Those Christians not part of the Evangelical far right do not want to be tarred with the Trump brush. The Apostolic Faiths, which have been growing as they are catholic (small c) in nature, particularly do not wish to be.
Ferragut Roig was executed by a firing squad with four of daughters, the latter of whom were nuns, by Spanish Republicans for being Catholic. The daughters were María de Jesús, María Verónica, María Felicidad, Josefa de la Purificación. They were all beatified in 2001.
Fr. Recaredo Centelles Abad, his brother in law, another priest and two laymen were likewise executed.
A person should make no mistake about it. The Spanish Republicans were not democrats. They were communists.
The Rome Berlin Axis was formalized with an alliance between Germany and Italy being signed.
The Rexist March on Brussels failed.
Over 70% of Republican Spain's gold left Spain for the USSR.
Last edition:
The first rule of logic: Chesterton's Fence:
There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."The second rule of logic: Hanlon's Razor
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
It's tempting to say that this will be an election like no other, and indeed, I think it is in many ways. In terms of American elections, it's the most important election, even though it's a midterm election, since the the Election of 1860. It's the election that will determine if Trump continues to rule as an insane dictator, or if the nation can begin to turn the path towards constitutional democracy.1
Things like this make this a critical election:
On the Cornell rapes:
Letitia James is a corrupt person…And I feel badly for whoever she's looking at because they won’t get a fair shake.
He later called James a "dog".
I'm an actual conservative. I am not a populist. Conservatives believe that man if flawed and that we should be careful to conserve things that have worked or are part of culture until we know what the reason for casting it aside would really be.
The sixth rule of logic: Yeoman's Gate:
Before you go through a gate to get to the other side of a fence, completely figure out, to the extent you can, where the path goes.
Conservatives believe that man is fallen and that our natures and the nature of the world, in its pure form, is dictated by an outside existential, that being God to most conservatives, and nature to some. We don't cast away easily, and we believe the Natural Law ultimately controls most things.
Conservatism has been killed by Donald Trump.
The most significant force around Trump is that of populism. Populism believes that the "will of the people" is endowed with some sort of magic virtue. The question is, who are the people? It's never all the people. Populists always regard themselves as "the people" and other people as the enemy of the people. They're easily lead by demagogues At one time they followed Bernie Sanders around like puppies, now they follow Donald Trump. The besotted populists believe that the will of the people is magically transmitted to Trump who is always right.
Trump is a dangerously sick man.
Trump has never been an admirable one. We could go into it, but people who claim he's "Godly" are rank idiots. Indeed, a significant portion of Trump supporters at this point are the absolute bottom of the bell curve. He's deeply immoral and is committing the United States to deeply immoral acts. Fortunately, the bloom is off the rose at this point, and it appears highly likely that the GOP, which has fallen down on its duties in Congress, will be tossed out. Due to weirdness of Trump's cabinet, we'll have to endure Trump for two more years, probably.
The problem for real conservatives, however, and particularly for Catholics, or indeed for Catholics whether they are conservative or not, is how to vote.
In the Catholic Tradition, responsible citizenship is a virtue, and participation in political life is a moral obligation.
Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, No. 13.
In Wyoming, some of the choices will be easy. Eric Barlow, the Republican, is the easy choice over Democrat Ken Casner or Dixiecrat Rebecca Bextel. It's not even close. Effectively, the races for Governor, Secretary of State, and Superintendent of Public Education are over, and will all go to good Republican candidates.
But the candidates for the House and Senate are a nightmare.
Chuck Gray is a co-religious about whom the public knows nothing. A far right right winger born with a silver spoon in his mouth he washed up in Wyoming as his daddy, who doesn't live here, has a radio station here. He barely won the primary for Secretary of State, after having been an abrasive personality in the legislature, by running on lies. Since the moment of his taking office in that position, he's been running for something else, and the House of Representatives fell to him when Harriet Hageman decided to run for retiring Cynthia Lummis' position.
Gray has been a horrible Secretary of State and he'll be a horrible Congressman. His campaign was basically that he loves Trump more than Trump loves Trump. Trump is a horror. This is a good reason not to vote for Gray, as if any additional reasons were needed. If he wins, and he's likely to, he'll be worthless as a junior member a minority party who knows nothing about the state he's supposed to represent.
The Democrat is Lisa Kinney. I just heard her speak, and she speaks very well. She didn't have the chance to get into specifics, but they can be guessed at. I'd be surprised at best if she wasn't "pro Choice", which is pro infanticide.
The Libertarian is Shaun Johnson. I heard him speak too but he also didn't really have the chance to get into specifics. The one interesting thing I heard him say is that he wouldn't caucus with the Republicans or the Democrats.
I don't think that Johnson has any chance. I think Kinney has an off chance.
I suspect that if Kinney wins, Christensen will run against her in 2028 and likely take the seat. I think he's planning on running.
The choice this year, therefore, is between Kinney and Gray. Voting for Kinney is saying no to Trump insanity. Voting for Gray is saying yes to Trump insanity. That's about it.
At the Senate level the Democrats have a really good candidate, James Byrd. The Republicans have a really horrible candidate, Harriet Hageman, who stabbed Liz Cheney, a former friend of hers, in the back so that she could crawl over her dead political body to go to Washington, where reportedly she already owned a house. If she was voted out, she'd never come back. She's shown contempt for her own state on public lands while there, making her potentially an even worse candidate than Gray.
She received a lot of votes in the primary, in spite of being such a horrible candidate. It'll take a lot for Byrd to overcome it.
So here's where we are at. We cannot vote for Gray or Hageman. Voting for them is voting for the insanity of Donald Trump and the ongoing destruction of the American democracy. Can we morally vote for Kinney and Byrd, or do we not vote at all on those races. Not voting on them may very well be like voting for Gray and Hageman. It's an interesting, and paramount, moral question.
Footnotes
1. And save the "we're a republic not a democracy" crap. That's brainless twaddle. Our Constitution creates a democratic republic and people who say that should have their right to vote, drive a car, or speak a sentence revoked.
Last edition:
I've been expecting it all along. It just came in a surprising fashion.
Deep hatred of Catholics is the last acceptable form of outright bigotry in the United States, although there's been a general rise of bigotry and racism during the illegitimate Trump interregnum. Trump's a populist, and populist tends to boost ignorance, with bigotry feeding on that. Most of the major populist movements a person can recall, the Nazis, the Communists, the Know Nothings, featured a lot of really ignorant people who were willing to be lead around by a others, sometimes a charismatic, to them, other.1 MAGA is a populist movement, masquerading as a conservative one, as Nazism was a populist movement that claimed conservatives within it. It's not too surprising, therefore, that we're seeing more of this sort of thing than we have at any point since the 1960s.
Quite a few of the more ignorant members of MAGA claim they support Trump as he's Godly, which is patently absurd, but there's no denying that far right wing Evangelicalism is a major component of MAGA. The Press, which isn't very well educated on religion anymore, just keeps calling them "Christians", which is really misleading. Some, but not all, far right Evangelicals supporting Trump hold religious beliefs that are very recent and very novel and well outside the mainstream of Apostolic Christianity and also out of the mainstream of most Protestant beliefs. Almost all MAGA Evangelicals fit into the ignorant of theology and Church history camp that's strong in the United States of being "Bible Believing Christians" who are pretty ignorant of a rule on the history of the books of the Bible.
Around the periphery of MAGA, however, there's been some Apostolic Christians, both Catholic and Orthodox, who have been, if not fully in the Trump camp, at least allowed to pitch a tent on its edges. Some of this is just flat out opportunistic on their part, and it looked like it would have a major impact on the Trump administration due to Trump's flat out ignorance and laziness. Inside the administration you have the example of J. D. Vance and Marco Rubio, and outside of it you have people like Kevin Roberts. You even have Peter Thiel, who claims not to be a Catholic but who keeps popping up in certain Catholic circles, as does Jordan Peterson and the Orthodox pundit Rod Dreher.2 National Conservatism has a strong right wing Catholic element to it, which is interesting in that it's sort of the intellectual heir of Fr. Charles Coughlin whose movement was shut down and who remains not widely admired in mainstream Catholic circles.
Most CAtholics that have supported Trump, however, have done so for one of two other reasons. The thinking ones have done so as it seemed like he was probably the only candidate who would address long held Catholic concerns, like abortion. People know that Trump himself was a louse, but they were willing to "hold their nose and vote". Others were Protestantized Catholics, of which there are a lot in the United States in the Boomer and Gen. Jones generations. These people are victims of the bad Catechization of the 1970s and as the US is a Protestant country, they've picked up a lot of Protestant beliefs.
Throughout Trump's second claim to power I've worried that the "Christian", i.e., far right Evangelical support of Trump would result in two things for Catholics. The first, which we will not address here, is that the association of "Christian" with Trump would result in Christianity taking a major hit. Evangelicalism definitely will. The second is that getting on the bus with Evangelicals would result in them beating us up as soon as we weren't of use to them.
And that's starting to happen.
The reason it started is because Pete Hegseth, who is festooned with Crusader themed tattoos announced that the U.S. Army is going to livestream the execution of former US Army Major Nidal Hasan who killed thirteen unarmed U.S. soldiers in 2009. 3 4
The Catholic Church is opposed to killing people. It's opposed to killing people in pretty absolutist terms and always has been, claims of Catholic haters aside. It's always been opposed to infanticide, including abortion. Early on in Church history there were serious debates if Christians, which were all Catholic, were required to be pacifists, and there are some saints who were. St. Martin of Tours, who had been a Roman soldier, famously told his commander "I am a soldier of Christ; it is not lawful for me to fight." Franz Jägerstätter, an Austrian farmer, went to his death in Nazi Germany rather than fight for the Nazi state. Ben Salmon, an American Catholic layman who has not been beatified went to prison as a conscientious objector during World War One as he held the view that all war was immoral. 5 And starting with Pope John Paul II, the Church has opposed the death penalty.
Catholic Bishops immediately responded to Hegseth's live stream the killing announcement by condemning it. Quiet a few individual priests with a net presence did as well. And then almost immediately after that Pope Leo XIV did, stating:
Los of hte comments immediately cited the Old Testament, which is a bit ironic as frankly the CAtholic Church uses the Old Testament much more than any Protestant group does. There's a number of quotes from the Old Testament that address the death penalty, for example:
Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind.
Genesis 9:6
Anyone who strikes a person with a fatal blow is to be put to death.
Exodus 21:12
So there you go. . .but wait:
Anyone who attacks their father or mother is to be put to death.
Exodus 21:15 & 21:17
Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.
Exodus 21:15 & 21:17
Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession.
Exodus 21:16
If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death."
Leviticus 20:10 (Adultery)
If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
Leviticus 20:13
Anyone who blasphemes the name of the Lord is to be put to death. The entire assembly must stone them."
Leviticus 24:16
Okay then, if we apply to the Old Testament, we need to be killing anyone cursing their parents, kidnappers, adulterers and adulteresses, homosexuals and blasphemeres.
Indeed, if this was fully applied, Donald Trump, Pete Hegseth, Paula White, and Scott Bessant wouldn't be in Washington D.C. as they're either adulturers or, in Bessant's case, a homosexual. Shoot, probably about 1/3d of the congregation of Protestant congregation would have to be offed, based on my observation that they don't take divorce or pre marital sex as a sin.
Well, what the heck? Why aren't we imposing the death penalty with sweeping abandon?
Well, that's because the Apostolic Churches and the Mainline Protestant Churches hold the view that Christ fulfilled the law and the Mosaic law does not apply to Christians. There are a pile of laws in the Mosaic Law that nobody seeks to apply to Christians due to the Catholic Church having alway taken this view. That's why Christians can eat shellfish and pork. Protestants who are running around declaring that the death penalty is Biblically mandated are apparently ignorant of the Bible and is laws, or they'd be killing adulterers, blasphemers, parent disrespecters, homosexuals and not eating shrimp.
Indeed, this was the case from day one. One of the very first debates in the Church was whether converts had to be circumcised. Nope, no longer applied. The dietary laws no longer did either.
It's also odd to see how all of these people aren't citing the New Testament. While the law was fulfilled by Christ, Christ did set down some pretty strict behavioral requirements. We are, for example supposed to love our enemies. That's a tough one.
Some have tried to drag out Church history, of which they're largely ignorant. "Well, the Church has always killed people. . ."
Nope. Indeed, from antiquity it's tried to stop it.
As Christ led you from death to life, so you should try to save not only the innocent, but also the guilty from death.
Pope St Nicholas the Great.
Now, I suppose you could argue that Pope St. Nicholas was talking about eternal life, but you sure are't going to save a guy by killing him.
And of course, there's the customary ignorant citation to the Black Legends were demonstrably untrue, but which lots of people still believe.
The Church as been against killing of all types right from the onset. But people, deep in their hearts, like killing. Lots of people make compromises with their Faith to justify their own acts and desires. Today, for example, is the anniversary of the murder of Hymie Weiss, the gangster who sanctioned hits, but who also carried a rosary in his pocket. As noted, plenty of very conservative Catholics have tried to say "well, I know that the Popes have said no death penalty, but it's still okay . . "6
It isn't.
And the real surprise to those not paying attention will be how prolife Catholics really are. Indeed, I've seen surprising statements in support of the Pope from completely secular sources.
And there's utterly no support for making this execution a public spectacle. We really are in the last days of the Roman Empire if we've reached that state. "War, inflation, . . . don't worry, look at my shiny baubles, come watch somebody die." Panem et circenses.
A danger of politics is that, for people who have a religion, even slightly, that it becomes easy to confuse your politics or your personal beliefs with your religion. The various flavors of the American Civil Religion are packed with that. Divorce is okay, and even extramarital sex, unless it's homosexual. . . Trump must be a Godly man as he's doing what I want him to, even if he's a liar and a serial polygamist.
There was always going to be a day when the Evangelical far right discovered that the Catholic Church is the Universal Church, it's everywhere, and that local politics are secondary to it. We're not right, not left, we're Catholic, the original Christians.
Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to. Once the owner of the house gets up and closes the door, you will stand outside knocking and pleading, ‘Sir, open the door for us.’
But he will answer, "I don’t know you or where you come from."
Luke 13:22-30.
This warning applies to us as well. "For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall much be required; and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more." Luke 12:48. We really can't ignore the barbarism of the Trump administration any more. We've invaded a foreign nation without cause, we're killing Iranians in an undeclared war, and we're murdering people on the high seas. The Nuremberg Defense or just ignoring it all doesn't work.
Well, we were always going to be hated. Frankly, as Catholics, when everything is going well for us, it's not going well.
Footnotes:
1. Hitler was reportedly very charismatic, although watching him from the outside, it's hard to see why. To his followers, Trump is charismatic, while to most other people he certainly is not.
2. I'm not claiming that Peterson is influential in the administration, but rather he's in the Catholic end of the National Conservatives even though he is not Catholic. His wife is. Dreher was Catholic at one time and converted to Orthodoxy, where he remains with one foot in the Catholic door and nearly, for that matter, in the back pews. Dreher is partially responsible for the intellectual atmosphere that made Trump possible even though he now outright holds Trump in contempt.
3. Hegseth is some sort of Evangelical on the far right. Actual Crusaders would have regarded him as a weird heretic.
4. The fact that the killings occurred in 2009 is a really good argument against the death penalty in and of itself as it takes so long and is so expensive that the punishment aspect of it is nearly lost by the time the sentence is carried out.
5. St. Augustine famously developed the Just War Theory, which people sort of naively regard as a Catholic free pass to war. It isn't. The theory has always been fairly restrictive and even though Catholics have waged and been in a lot of wars, a lot of wars don't fit the category of being "just".
Even when they are, finding a war that's justly waged is difficult. World War Two probably stands out as a war which, for the Allies, was just, but the Allies clearly took deeply immoral actions in it, the nighttime bombing raids of the RAF, and the USAF nuclear bombings, being the two primary examples for the Western Allies.
Recently Pope Leo has further clarified the doctrine and while I do not think that his statements actually develop it in any fashion, they caused shock waves and they probably should as Catholics really need to consider if they can morally serve in the U.S. military at this point.
6. No Pope has declared the death penalty invalid ex cathedra, so a slim ability to argue it's still okay exists. But it's very slim.
Sanctify yourself and you will sanctify society.
I felt like bait.
So basically… it’s dangerous to be around men?
I understand the argument about risk, judgment, alcohol, and putting yourself in vulnerable situations. Those are conversations worth having.
But there’s something deeply unsettling about telling young women: You know what men are like. You know these places are dangerous. Why did you go?
Women go to fraternity parties because they want to socialize. They want to flirt. They want to meet men. They may even want to have consensual sex.
None of those things should require accepting sexual assault as a foreseeable consequence of being around men.
At some point, “women need to make better choices” becomes an extraordinarily damning statement about men.
So the feminist position is “not all men,” but the anti-feminist position is apparently, “Ladies, you knew there would be men there”?
Well, she's correct in everything she said, the commenter, but she's wrong. Large groups of young men have fallen off the rails in this way since we have been a species. So, yes, "it's dangerous to be around men".
It is.
Not all men all the time, but this gets back to standards of the past. It's not that dangerous to be around a bunch of young men. . . who are near older men. . .and better yet if some of them are relatives. I've seen young men begin to act improperly towards young women where older men were present and intervened, sometimes forcibly.8 In other words, being at the Sheepherders' Fair is one thing, being at Moonies, apparently, quite another.
And, influencer, having a wardrobe made entirely of overly tight halter tops is dangerous. That does, in the real world, one thing. It advertises your boobs, and advertises that your boobs are available for the taking, along with things located elsewhere on your female body.
We'll loop back around here to the Flanagan article, which is drawing flak. Flanagan condemns franternitis solidly in the article. She notes that fraternities were dangerous when she was in college, and that a boyfriend she was breaking up with warned her never to go upstairs in one, which she never did.
Then she asked this question:
That’s the saddest thing about these old rituals. What attracts women to those parties—late at night, like Jane Doe—to walk alone to a fraternity house and take her chances?
What she’s really looking for is a man. And she has no idea how to find a good one.
