I agree that is has become a buzzword. However bullies have existed since Cain and Abel. Just because liberals have hijacked the word doesn't mean it is meaningless, objectively speaking. There is room for it in a Catholic understanding and it would be categorized under sins against charity. Picking on someone and intimidating them for no good reason is sinful whether one, both or neither of you is liberal. Call it by another name if you wish, the concept remains the same and under normal circuмstances, it is sinful.
No. Cain was not a "bully." Cain was a murderer. Murder is the first of the Four Sins that Cry to Heaven for Justice and is a bout as different from "bullying" as an elephant is from an ant. Do you see why precision in terms is so vital, and the confusion that arises when we throw terms around willy-nilly?
"Bullying," as everyone used to understand that term before feminists and fαɢɢօts got hold of it, is the act that is committed when a bigger, boorish child pushes around a smaller, weaker one. This is behavior that should be discouraged in children, but it is as natural and inevitable as any other childish behavior. It's a matter best left to parents and schoolmarms.
Murder, assault, and harassment are all, to varying degrees, intrinsically sinful. Killing, violence, and confrontation, however, are not intrinsically sinful. What separates these superficially similar lists of acts is intention and circuмstance. Throwing the word "bullying" around in the same fashion that our feminized, enfaggened culture does confuses matters by failing to make these distinctions and, before you know it, you're placing the Murder of Abel in the same category as children "picking on" one another.
Men are aggressive by nature and by God's Will. If a man puts that aggression to bad use by harassing someone unjustly, he commits sin. If he puts that aggressiveness to good use by confronting a sodomite or a heretic, he does good. Feminist sloganeering about "Bullies" fails to make this distinction, and damns all male aggression out of hand as "bullying." It behooves us to not play as fast and loose with language as the Enemies of the Faith do. And speaking of enemies:
Wouldn't God's enemies be our own? We are to pray for them. And there again, what is your definition of hatred? Would you wish for their damnation? Would you resent their contrition and conversion?
Yes, God's enemies are
supposed to be ours. But because man is fallen and prideful, most of our enemies tend to be "our" enemies; those who have trespassed against us. It is these to whom we must dispense with hate and show mercy.
A pernicious heretic, or apostate, or Satanist, or atheistic hater of God is God's enemy. We are to avoid their company like the plague. We are to condemn them verbally whenever possible, and, in Christian nations, the secular arm is to deal with such persons with utmost severity, including killing them. That is the kind of hatred the Holy Ghost commands through the words of King David:
Have I not hated them, O Lord, that hated thee: and pine away because of thy enemies? I have hated them with a perfect hatred: and they are become enemies to me. Psalm 138:21-22Not for nothing have the Modernists removed that Psalm from the "Liturgy of the Hours." They will espouse God's mercy all day long, but will have no talk of His Justice. Let us embrace both. God wills for all men to be saved, and so must we. But we know full well that all men will not be saved. And the saints in heaven do not weep for the condemned souls in hell, rather they rejoice that God's Justice has been done.