Pope Francis

Pope Francis calls out the language of war. He speaks against “war” as a solution. In this, he echoes many prior popes.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) joined many Americans in expressing strong emotional responses to two Supreme Court decisions, one relating to Title VII protections against discrimination (Bostock v. Clayton County) and the other to the “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals” or DACA program (Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California).

Three decades after the Cold War’s end, do we still need a nuclear arsenal today? Edward Ifft thinks not and in Christianity Today urges his fellow Christians to believe likewise. Peter Feaver, William Inboden, and Michael Singh disagree.

A theologian’s task in time of plague is to show the light and give people hope. In recent years, many of us trained as theologians have traded our office for that of the pundit and scold. That we have so little worthwhile to say now, in this unprecedented time of fear and uncertainty, is yet one more sign of judgment.

A basic rule of discriminating moral reasoning is that we are only obliged to do an action that we are able to do. That is, an ought implies a can.

The pontiff is right to express concern about the risks of accidental detonation and the employment of nuclear weapons. He’s just wrong on how best to increase the chances of preventing their employment.

Pope Francis visited Hiroshima and Nagasaki this weekend. In both locations, he lamented the horrors and immorality of nuclear weapons. He got the horror right, not much else.

The Ordinaries’ statement is extraordinary, and not primarily for its reorientation away from a two-state solution toward one state.

Prioritizing human rights with the king, going to Morocco’s marginalized religious minority population, and calling upon the Church in Morocco truly to open its doors to Moroccans would make this apostolic visit a meaningful multifaith engagement.