Saturday, August 11, 2012

Paul Ryan, Catholicism, and Budgets

Paul Ryan is a Catholic...in politics...in good standing with his bishop...bet you didn't think anyone in politics fit that mold!

We're going to hear a lot of distortion coming from people trying to say basically this: "Paul Ryan is for slashing the budget and hurting poor people, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Kathleen Sebelius, etc. are for late-term abortions, they're both equally bad Catholics."

That is a horrible argument, and a decidedly non-Catholic argument.

When Rep. Ryan released a budget plan a year or so ago that would attempt to reel our country's debt back in, he was lambasted by professors at Georgetown for violating Catholic Social Teaching because the budget was spun to be tough on the poor, and some programs obviously were cut that have traditionally been in place.  That's what happens when you cut a budget down.

A famous phrase in companies and politics is "a budget is a moral statement", which means a budget reflects what you value.  Well, if a budget continues to be 2 trillion dollars off every year, what does that say other than "we think, as a country, that we can spend without consequences."  That is also a violation of Church teaching.

If the U.S. is spending 2 trillion more than it has EVERY YEAR, then the person who comes up with a plan to trim that down is obviously going to have to cut some things out.  Can we really fault the trimmer?  No...the problem was the person who set the program up in the first place and didn't figure out how to pay for it.  Of course Ryan is going to look bad, any person who is going to try to save our country financially will have to cut some programs for the poor, etc.

This brings up two things I've been saying on here for years - the Church actually says, in it's Catholic Social Teaching document, that it is only for TEMPORARY WELFARE, not permanent (click here and here to read those posts).  All the Georgetown profs might want to dust off their copy of the Catholic Social Teaching.


I've written many times about how only people who have read the Compendium of Catholic Social Teaching ought to be able to comment on Catholic Social Teaching (click here for the post where I encourage only allowing people who have been licensed in Catholic Social Teaching to speak on it).

Here is Rep. Ryan talking about his budget.  It is quite clear that his budget actually can be explained in light of Catholic Social Teaching.  Here is a guy who understands Catholic Social Teaching.  It is also quite clear to any reasonable Catholic that trimming certain programs in our government is not the same as supporting partial birth abortion.



Paul Ryan speech at Georgetown University from David Morse on Vimeo.

33 comments:

  1. The evil of abortion is infallibly define Catholic doctrine. How many people get food stamps and what the numbers of Medicare should be are not.

    Not only do the profs at Georgetown need to read up on Catholic Social Teaching, but sadly so do some of our bishops.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Father, I thought you represented a not for profit, tax exempt, non-political organization. Obviously that is not the case. ????

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What have I said that is not compliant with the tax exempt code of the IRS?

      Delete
    2. Anon: I wonder if you would have said the same thing to MLK

      Delete
  3. Three quick requests, please:
    1) Detail in which way Father violated the 501c3 code for simply talking about Congressman Ryan and using his points as a lead-in to teaching Catholic Social Teaching
    2) Detail how clergymen like Jesse Jackson can have candidates on the pulpit at church stumping for their campaigns and not be in violation
    3) Reply non-anonymously ad Father and I do.

    Thank you. I'll be here, awaiting your reply.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Paul Ryan voted for the war in Iraq which the Catholic Church said was "unjust".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I say this with a tone of charity on my end, but your comment betrays, again, a lack of understanding about the Church's Social Teaching.

      The just war doctrine is a fluid set of principles, not always black and white, they are guidelines that can HELP but usually not de facto make judgments as to whether a war is just or not.

      The issue of Iraq is even murkier. There were several different wars within the second Iraq war. As to the Church saying it was unjust, Pope Benedict (at the time Cardinal Ratzinger) said he felt like unilateral attacks on Iraq were not justified, but he also acknowledged that it was his personal opinion, and that is really important.

      John Paul II's comments also have to be understood in their proper context. There are different levels that Pope's speak at, not all of them carrying equal force. A Pope can speak personally, and express misgivings about a war, but that isn't "The Catholic Church" ruling on something.

      George Weigel explains this nicely (as always): "The Holy Father speaks, as all popes speak, in different registers: magisterial, doctrinal-theological, pastoral, prophetic. To suggest, as the critics do, that these are all the self-same papal voice - equivalent acts of the papal magisterium with equally binding force on the consciences of Catholics - is to make a fundamental theological error. The Pope himself doesn’t make that mistake. Neither should critics who attempt to parse the Pope’s statements on Iraq as binding magisterial support for their own prudential judgments about the best way to handle the Saddam Hussein regime."

      Ironic that many who say "The Catholic Church said Iraq was unjust" even though it was the Pope speaking off hand and not magisterially, often IGNORE the 2,000,000 times that John Paul II said contraception, abortion, and euthenasia are mortal sins ALWAYS and EVERYWHERE and in those instances he WAS SPEAKING AS POPE and issuing the statement with the force of his doctrinal teaching authority.

      Delete
    2. Father, you should not answer to those that act misguided, because they are not. Instead they just spew and then play dumb as a fox. Father you are right and Anonymous has issues and is "Annoying". He/she knows better, but would rather attempt to bait than debate-for there is not one

      Delete
    3. I think it is worth debating on the adherence to the Just War Doctrine, but that aside, didn't Paul Ryan take an oath of office - "I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

      What congressional power, in the US Constitution, gives Paul Ryan the ability to in-debt our country in his support of being the World Police?

      When I read Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution, the words "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" are in opposition to Mr Ryan's neocon military voting record.

      Mr Ryan's expansive view of government militarism has nothing to do with common defense. It's no wonder the Republican Party is doing everything it can from keeping Dr Ron Paul from a convention microphone. He would tell the truth. He lives by the oath he took.

      Delete
    4. Paul Ryan modeled himself and his policies after Ayn Rand, there's nothing more un-Catholic than that. And don't take my word for it, there's several videos of him praising her and her moral views <_<

      Delete
    5. It would be more un-Catholic to take as your hero Margaret Sanger. That is more un-Catholic

      Delete
    6. Although Ayn Rand did not believe in God. The women had a lot to offer. I am sad when a person believes in the right to choose. I am also perplexed when a person acts like Mag Sanger was someone that did good for women. It was/is a terrible part of history (Sanger & planned Parenthood). So many that are pro-choice need to study Sanger's real history. Her and people like Woodrow Wilson were called progressives and were that in the worst way. They were 2 of the most racist people this country has known or I should say part of this country has known. People just think what they want to think, in other words they don't think. Like Edwards statement below. Its the typical attempt to bend the rules with excuses like we live in different times or teachings passed through human history can be interpreted literally or if one feels they can contextually. In the case of abortion I understand that some at one point or an other have struggled with sexual behavior and the outcomes of those actions. Over time, not that its good , but we have invented contraceptives(all sorts) education on sex and we still take risks. And it is people like Edward right there making the silly argument "Everybody does it" or"they're going to do it anyways". So then we should put condoms in schools??? Why not put cigarette machines there too? "they're going to do it anyways" See, now where's the logic? There isn't because it's called enabling or encouraging, basically promoting

      Delete
  5. It is arrogant to believe that you or anyone has the full "understanding" of the Church's Social Teaching. These teachings, like any "political stance," have been applied to different situations, at different times, for different purposes.

    Just war is a smokescreen to literally say, that we are wise enough o decide when killing other people is ok, but, in the same breath to say(for example, and argument's sake) that a woman with children and no means out of a life of poverty, has to be forever celibate or find someone to marry, and then- just have more children, to fulfill the Church's total rejection of the practical reality of living as faithfully, and realistically as a God created sexual being- in the American culture of 2012. This is just one issue. We are currently looking at a Church so afraid and paternalistic as to dare want "control" over dedicated sisters, who have devoted their lives to serving the poor, the marginalized and the oppressed of this and other countries. What is the Church afraid of? The Church wanted trained, and theologically educated lay people, and give lip service to wanting to hear the "voices of women", but they don't really know what to do about either of these realities of the American Church today. More deacons is not the answer. Unless the Church opens dialogue on mandatory celibacy, married priests, what social justice, in a JustFaith sense, really is all about, fully affirming the GLBT community, then, there may well be a schismatic Church, a small "orthodox" Vatican approved Church, and the rest of us, struggling daily on our individual journeys, to be faithful in Scripture the way that Jesus stated it, not the way the Catholic Church hierarchy voted and made up rules around issues, until the need for a "new Reformation" is now upon us. It is a BIG Church, and people have a wide variety of sincere and heartfelt opinions. Don't disrespect them, ignore them, or just dismiss them as not really knowing the "right position." Mary Magdalene might have not recognized Jesus gardening outside of the tomb, but she was the one at the tomb, unafraid, while the male apostles cowered in fear far away from the immediate "ground zero." Perhaps the Vatican has become the gilded empty tomb of a Church that has lost its way of the Cross, the "little way" of St. Francis, Dorothy Day, and Sr. Joan Chittister's voice is vilified as heretical. Speaking "truth to power" cuts both ways, and the "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Light," is still referencing Jesus, and now, is present to us, you and me, in the Holy Spirit. Let our journey's continue, let the mystery be, and let the "breath of fresh air" from Vatican II, continue to blow into our lives, our hearts, and impart within us a practical "emptying of ourselves," our egos and our issues, to become truly an open, embracing people standing up proudly for peace and justice for all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If someone claimed to have read "Harry Potter" or "Gulliver's Travels" and then said they knew the plot to those stories, no one would accuse them of being arrogant.

      The Compendium of Catholic Social Teaching is an actual book, it is 4-500 pages, it has a black cover with a neat painting on the front. It has a beginning, a middle, and an end. To make the objective statement that one has read the Compendium and therefore can comment on what is contained within it is not arrogant it is a fact.

      Have you read the Compendium?

      Delete
  6. Ed, you are my uncle, but your rants got you blocked on Facebook. Don't make me do it here too.

    What I consider the height of arrogance is a person who claims to be Catholic but says they know better than 2,000 years of teaching.

    Just War Theory is in the Catechism. If it is a smoke screen for violence, then have the intellectual courage to leave the Church. Your beef isn't with me - it's with the Catechism.

    You mention abortion for single mothers who are poor - Ed, that is wrong according to the Catechism, and has been since the early Church. The thing that an early Church father noted that separated Christians from all other cultures is that Christians consider it completely evil to kill their children. Your beef is not with me, it is with the Catechism. Again, have the intellectual courage to leave the Church if it is all so wrong.

    Don't even get me started on the sisters. Ed, look around you. The orders that the LCWR represent are almost extinct. NO ONE is joining their ranks. NO ONE! Why - because they have become known by their fruits, and the fruit is rotten! The sisters that have remained faithful to the Church, who haven't been out saying "Oh, the Catholic Church is just a big paternalistic power structure" the ones that have continued to live the life that has always been associated with religious sisters (at least through the 1960's) from Terese to Theresa of Avila to Mother Teresa - those places are booming. I'd say the same thing to the LCWR that I say to you - if there is nothing to being Catholic - if Christ left no earthly Church, no teachings, no laws, no structures - then sisters, have the intellectual courage to denounce the structures you spend all your oxygen railing against. Or is it the case, Sr. Joan, that continuing to call yourself Catholic helps sell a few extra books on the side?

    Ed, this is a confused, relativistic, protestant rant of a person who has bought into the Devil's narrative that the Catholic Church is a male dominated power structure. Pave the way and leave it behind and sail off into your bright future unencumbered by stuffy and out of date doctrines. At least Luther had the courage to be honest.

    I'll end with this - I do agree with you on one thing...we are very definitely heading for schism. I'm not sure which will happen first, but I do believe it will happen soon. Either
    a) A bunch of people like yourself will finally pluck up the courage to call a spade a spade and will actually start their new Church without rules/canons/catechisms/truth or
    b) persecution will strike the Church because of either this health care stuff or more likely the homosexuality issue, and people will finally be forced into giving up their religion or being persecuted, and so many nominal cafeteria catholics (priests included) who never really liked the Church anyway will fold like a pup tent in the wind, tuck tail, and forsake their Catholicism. Persecution has always thinned the herd considerably throughout history, and it will be no different in the persecution that is coming our way soon enough.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. May I just say as a young woman open to a possible religious vocation I am in no way attracted to liberal pant suit sisters. I could live their lives with out taking vows of chastity, poverty and obedience. I think in 30 years the only orders left will be ones who wear habits, live in community, attend daily mass and uphold the magesterium of the Catholic Church. Every time I see a sister in her habit it I gasp with excitement! Maybe this strikes you as odd but I think it says something about these wayward sisters. I will pray for their conversion...

      Delete
  7. Amen Father. Christ calls us to be one body, our unity a witness of the truth, but schism is still an effective cleansing tool.
    In the dark days of the reformation, when eighteen of the current southern E.U. countries were controlled by the muslims. The protestant reformation touched off class warfare, revolt against the status quo in many countries. A 300,000 man turk army had penetrated central Europe and surrounded Vienna Austria. The Pope asked for support from Martin Luther who responded that the Muslims were Gods tool for destroying the Catholic church. Things looked pretty bleak for the church.
    But because of the CC's fidelity and its attempted missionary zeal of evangelizing the New World. Our Lady of Guadaloupe interceded, to convert the Indians of the America's and drive back the Turks from Europe.
    Schism allowed the church to reform itself, refresh itself and eventually become stronger then ever, remaining true to its mission. Eventhough Christ already won the war with his resurrection, our bodies still die, theres still a process. The cosmic battle continues for individual souls. Christ still expects us to wage the fight against evil and so he left us the Eucharist. If we stick with the Eucharist, we will follow St. Paul in first corinthians, who advises us to first correct but in necessary drive out the relativists before they ruin the loaf, then continue to spread the good news until he returns.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Father, you are a blessing to all Catholics Thank you for all your work. I pray you will continue to inspire us all for years to come. I pray for you and priests like you who are bringing back the truths of the church

    ReplyDelete
  9. I'll side with the nuns on this one. Since they are the ones living the Beatitudes and can give us a true gauge of social injustice I'm guessing they know what will happen when Medicare and Social Security are destroyed by Paul Ryan's war on the poor and middle class. His runningmate pays 14% in taxes talk about a rigged system.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow, thanks for judging me and every other priest, every bishop and every lay Catholic by telling us we aren't living the Beatitudes.

      The Sisters are the only ones. Right. That's not a judgmental or hateful idea at all.

      Isn't judgmentalism the highest form of mortal sin for cafeteria Catholics. I can't believe you would turn around and commit that sin you so often preach against.

      Delete
    2. Not every other Priest are like you, some do have a very high morals
      http://authors.loyolapress.com/author/james-martin/

      Delete
  10. Thanks for judging me as well by calling me a cafeteria Catholic. Personally I find it insulting when an priest tells its congregation who to vote. I think our country has no business telling others how to govern when we can't even get democracy right. I guess though its not considered theocracy when Christianity is involved. We went with the "good Christian" in 2000 and 2004. How did that work out?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But you already knew I was judgmental, all of us conservative traditionalist priests are always judgmental. It is the open-minded tolerant LCWR types who claim to be non-judgmental, but usually disappoint in that area sooner or later and we typically find out pretty quickly that they are a smidge judgmental and a smidge non-tolerant themselves.

      Where did I say who to vote for? I said we are going to hear people falsely portraying Catholicism and our Catholic Social Teaching for the next four months (and the "nuns" and other lib Catholics will keep that misrepresentation going even after the election is over) so my post was to talk about what the Church ACTUALLY teaches. I didn't say who anyone should vote for - I said it illustrates a complete ignorance of Catholic Social Teaching when people say a perpetual welfare state is what the Church advocates for as the best way to help the poor - that is a complete and bald-faced lie.

      Delete
    2. What I'm hearing is the church is for the unborn but we may have to cut programs that may help the unborn once they are born. No healthcare, no food stamps, no head start? This money will be gone to support a military budget over 600 times what China's is. So we should support a budget that gives more breaks to the wealthy? The wealthy should pay the same or in some cases less than the families who have sacraficed children to protect the overseas interests of the wealthy? I'm all for a balanced budget too but we live in an extremely wealthy country with plenty to go around. The church may be ok with Ryans budget which you are the expert, however I'm not convinced that Jesus would be.

      Delete
    3. What I'm saying is when the country is bankrupt it can't help the poor any more. I agree our military budget is astronomical. As for the wealthy, just calling them "wealthy" has a Marxist ring to it. I don't know the ins and outs of how it treats the "wealthy" but I have a real problem with the word "breaks" because it implies that the government OWNED the "wealthy people's" money in the first place and is now giving it back. If there were no taxes on anyone it wouldn't be giving people a "break" it would mean no longer taking from them what was theirs. I'm all for taxes, don't get me wrong, but to say that taking less taxes from anyone, whether it is the poor, the middle class, or the "wealthy", that is never giving that group of people a "break"

      Delete
    4. Anonymous - What gives any one American the right to live at the expense of another American? Are you comfortable holding people at gunpoint for compliance? How about imprisoning those unwilling to comply? There is nothing Catholic, natural, or moral about socialism, Marxism or any other statist form of redistribution. Convince me Jesus asked us to use the force of Caesar to do his will?

      Delete
    5. Gmfallon....I don't believe in guns. So no I'm not willing to hold anyone at gunpoint. I always enjoy the socialist name calling. I'm not a fan of laissez faire capitialism, are you? Capitialism without controls will run wild on the weak. Glass steagull anyone?

      Why do we live in a country were I leave my house everyday to work a job to make income that I have to pay 25% taxes. Mitt romney for example makes in 30 seconds what I make in a year and he pays 14%. He doesn't even have to leave the house. I'm not jealous of what he makes I just want him to pay the same as I do. One would think since his kids will never have to see a battlefield he wouldnt mind paying just a bit more for that security. But no he insults me by standing behind a tax system that works to his advantage. But hey feel free to call me a socialist if you feel it necessary.

      I'm all for social experiments though let's end all government handouts and let the church handle it.

      Delete
    6. helping each other is not being Marxist or Socialist, it's part of being Catholic.When there was no wine, did Jesus told his Mother,"Let them resolve the problem" or when there was not enough bread and fish did he told the people to go home and get some?
      We are our brothers keeper, all we have is given to us by the Lord, and he tell us to share our crops not fill our barns

      Delete
    7. It is rather sad when people think the only way to help the poor is to let the government do it. If the government does it, then that severely cuts into people's ability to help one another themselves. That's why the Church is for SHORT TERM WELFARE, not a permanent welfare state like we currently have - the Church (and Christ) wants YOU AND I to care for each other and to care for the poor. Neither the Church nor Christ think it is ideal that the government care for the poor.

      Delete
    8. I recommend everyone read Benedict XVI's two encyclicals. Especially the second one. In it you will get sharp criticism of both capitalism and socialism. Also, read his comment about a new phenomenon called "Regnocentrism" from his book Jesus of Nazareth:

      Since that time, a secularist reinterpretation of the idea of the Kingdom has gained considerable ground, particularly, though not exclusively, in Catholic theology. This reinterpretation propounds a new view of Christianity, religions, and history in general, and it claims that such a radical refashioning will enable people to reappropriate Jesus’ supposed message. It is claimed that in the pre-Vatican II period, “ecclesiocentrism” was the dominant position: The Church was represented as the center of Christianity. Then there was a shift to Christocentrism, to the doctrine that Christ is the center of everything. But it is not only the Church that is divisive — so the argument continues — since Christ belongs exclusively to Christians. Hence the further step from Christocentrism to theocentrism. This has allegedly brought us closer to the community of religions, but our final goal continues to elude us, since even God can be a cause of division between religions and between people.

      Therefore, it is claimed, we must now move toward “regnocentrism,” that is, toward the centrality of the Kingdom. This at last, we are told, is the heart of Jesus’ message, and it is also the right formula for finally harnessing mankind’s positive energies and directing them toward the world’s future. “Kingdom,” on this interpretation, is simply the name for a world governed by peace, justice, and the conservation of creation. It also means no more than this. This “Kingdom” is said to be the goal of history that has to be attained. This is supposedly the real task of religions: to work together for the coming of the “Kingdom.” They are of course perfectly free to preserve their traditions and live according to their respective identities as well, but they must bring their different identities to bear on the common task of building the “Kingdom,” a world, in other words, where peace, justice, and respect for creation are the dominant values.

      This sounds good; it seems like a way of finally enabling the whole world to appropriate Jesus’ message, but without requiring missionary evangelization of other religions. It looks as if now, at long last, Jesus’ words have gained some practical content, because the establishment of the “Kingdom” has become a common task and is drawing nigh. On closer examination, though, it seems suspicious. Who is to say what justice is? What serves justice in particular situations? How do we create peace? On closer inspection, this whole project proves to be utopian dreaming without any real content, except insofar as its exponents tacitly presuppose some partisan doctrine as the content that all are required to accept.

      But the main thing that leaps out is that God has disappeared; man is the only actor left on the stage. The respect for religious “traditions” claimed by this way of thinking is only apparent. The truth is that they are regarded as so many sets of customs, which people should be allowed to keep, even though they ultimately count for nothing. Faith and religions are now directed toward political goals. Only the organization of the world counts. Religion matters insofar as it can serve that objective. This post-Christian vision of faith and religion is disturbingly close to Jesus’ third temptation.

      Delete
    9. It is easy to criticize any form of government. And the form we use capitalism is not perfect but is the best. Name another that is close and you would be wishing. We all could come up with endless problems with our capitalism. The same for any other style of government. But we could come with endless positives that capitalism gives. For one example we have the freedom that others in history never have had. You have the best chance to become what you want. Most people who fail at their dreams are as normal as those who succeed. Capitalism gives you the best chance to live your dreams. As far the US military being gutted Scott W. that is easy. But what don't understand is of the money spent in the military it spent more efficient than any other gov. department. Sure you can't believe that. You gather all the waste in the military and I will let that number be their whole budget. Then pick any other gov. department like the department of education. Of coarse the military is not popular to most, just that unpopular view turn this into challenge that would be fair or balance. Numbers don't lie though. Almost anyone can question the military. Don't ever question education or they might all of a sudden want to use the military on you. Seriously though we should just quit complaining and gut everything say 10% across the board. We just spent 780 billion just on stimulus in less than 3 years and where is it? Bailing out banks, car companies AIG insurance for the 3rd time, propping up stocks with bank money and then not giving out loans for the housing crisis and where did we get all that money??? Well we printed some and of coarse from china. So get financing to pay for illegals aliens, bail the EU banks heck why not nationalize health care. The ONE PARTY SYSTEM WITH BIG BUSINESS EQUALS EMPTY SUITS WITH THE MEDIA LOOKING THE OTHER WAY Scott W the military is the least of our problems. Need leaders with the guts to do the right thing. Right now is capitalism at its worst As a whole we have become lazy, spoiled,dysfunctional, want want want, unaccountable, whining and in denial top of with no one leading. Good Luck to all

      Delete
  11. As one of those awful right-wing Catholics you hear about, you may be surprised to learn that I am in favor of gutting the US military. The so-called conservatives of America are really just toned-down liberals, and all that happens when they win an electoral victory is that liberalism--something that can't be sustained without artificial life-support--gets to sleaze along awhile longer withering everything it touches. Right now European countries, whose welfare and health-care programs everyone thinks are so wonderful, are going broke. If the US wised up and gutted its military, and other countries were forced to foot their own military bills, they would probably drop their commitment to socialist fairylands quickly. Of course this would mean global instability in plenty of places we've had a tradition of not worrying about but hey, that evil US military has got to go right? But I'm not betting on that ever happening. Obama hasn't shown any real interest in reducing our military commitments. Romney won't ether. Neither will President Hippy Moonbat Jr. if he gets elected. Liberalism's monopoly of force is the only thing keeping it alive. Here endeth the rant. :)

    ReplyDelete
  12. Father, I cannot hear the Paul Ryan clip, not sure if it is my computer or the posting.

    Thanks and God Bless

    ReplyDelete