Let Every Catholic Do Their Own Thing
Under fire from the nation’s Catholic Bishops for writing a budget that cuts deeply into programs that help the needy, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) defended his vision in a Thursday speech at Georgetown University. Ryan said the bishops do not have a monopoly on the truth and that every Catholic is free to understand Catholic social teachings his own way.
The speech was a response to recent criticism from the Catholic Bishops, who in an unusually large number of letters to Capitol Hill disparaged Ryan’s budget for “fail[ing] to meet … moral criteria” of protecting the poor, calling for “shared sacrifice by all” including raising revenues and considering military cuts.
Ryan made matters worse by initially arguing that the bishops’ letter did not reflect the views of “all the Catholic bishops,” to which the bishops’ official spokesperson reminded Ryan that it was indeed written by those elected to “represent all of the U.S. bishops.” No bishop has come forward in dissent from brother bishops causing many to think Ryan’s claim is made up.
While a professional politician for many years, Ryan had no record of speaking about Catholic social principles until very recently. He was known to commend and require his staff to read the writings of Ayn Rand, who mixed right –wing economics with a strident hostility to all religion. As the speaker at a 2005 dinner in honor of Ayn Rand, Ryan said, “The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand,"
Only last year did wealthy conservative Catholics find his obvious dissent from the Church to be a problem. They drafted a letter for Archbishop Timothy Dolan. Dolan refused to endorse any of Ryan’s economic theories but did speaking kindly and pastorally that he thought Ryan was well-intentioned. Since then, he and conservative Catholic laymen have been working to promote Ryan as a more authentic teacher of Catholic principles than the bishops themselves.
25 comments:
Ryan and his crew are not only making statements but sponsoring legislation that “disagree(s) with or challenge(s) the bishops, who are the church’s authentic teachers of faith and morals.” Maybe the Vatican, having set a precedent with our American nuns, will now intervene with the Gordon Gecko / Ayn Rand / Mitt Romney Catholics.
Really Tommy, I thought the Bishops were White Collar Wall Street extermists. How do feel about the crackdown on those poor dear sisters?
Liberalism works great until you run out of other peoples' money.
Paul Ryan's own bishop disagrees with you, Thomas.
Prudential matters - how one is to achieve a worthy goal like caring for the poor, a worthy endeavor no doubt. But the "how" is what you seem to be missing. It is quite different than killing babies in the womb. There is not a legitimate "prudential" consideration in "how" to directly kill a baby. See the difference??
The Bishops have denounced the Ryan budget. On the other hand, there are prudential considerations as to how to protect the unborn as well as the poor.
Yes, Kurt. Again, this is a prudential matter. We don't protect the unborn by voting individuals into office who propose and vote for legislation that results in the direct killing of unborn children.
One way the pill works is as an abortifacient.
Passing legislation (healthcare mandate including contraception) and subsidizing it with taxpayer's dollars by force is not a matter of prudence. This is an attack on so many fronts including most importantly the dignity of the human person and on its most basic fundamental right to be born.
What is your opinion of Bishop Morlino's comments? I would think he would know Paul Ryan best.
Also, Paul Ryan is not publicly advocating or saying anything against Church teaching. He is proposing methods on how to best deal with the poor. N. Pelosi and K. Sebelius are not advocating stopping abortion. They are advocating or proposing methods to increase the usage of the pill which does kill unborn children at times. Their prudence involves the question on how to give women more ample opportunities to prevent preganancy with the use of contraception and access to abortion to terminate the baby in the womb. They both claim to be so called "pro-choice". That is not a prudential position to take. This is against the doctrine of the faith. We know what "choices" they are advocating.
Yes, in the real world of actual possibilities, it makes more prudential sense to save the unborn by making sure that less women are impoverished which is not going to happen under a Paul Ryan austerity budget. This budget ensures that more women will be economically pinched and that more will opt for abortion.
I didn't know about Paul Ryan's bishop being opposed to the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. Indeed, it does seem he needs be investigated like the nuns.
The best "prudential" consideration to protect the unborn, is a vote for Romney.
Yes, Kurt. Again, this is a prudential matter.
All politics is a prudential matter. It is the nature of the art.
One way the pill works is as an abortifacient.
You would be wrong on that matter.
Also, Paul Ryan is not publicly advocating or saying anything against Church teaching.
You can't be Catholic and vote to screw the poor, workers, the elderly and the middle class so that you can give tax breaks to your favorite special interests.
Paul Ryan proposed a budget that has over 2 TRILLION DOLLARS in social spending, but you claim Catholics cant support that budget.
However this blog supports a president who believes and advocates abortion should be legal all 9 months, and if a baby survives an abortion should be denied medical care. Obama is the first president to openly endorse homosexual marriage, and to use your term, he is SCREWING the Catholic Church. You cant be a Catholic and vote for Obama.
Kurt said: "You can't be Catholic and vote to screw the poor, workers, the elderly and the middle class so that you can give tax breaks to your favorite special interests."
I agree with your statement above. I personally know no one who goes out to vote to "screw the poor, etc". How one is to attempt to help the poor is a matter of prudential judgement.
Mr. Ryan does not believe his policies are intended to "screw the poor". If you believe he is intent on "screwing the poor", please find the quote where he states something to that affect. I will wait for your response. If he made public statements like this, I would appreciate it if you would bring it to my attention. But please just don't interpret what you believe his policies will do. That is where prudence comes into play. We can have differences of opinion on prudential judgement.
Perhaps Mr. Ryan believes you should teach a kid to fish so that he can eat for a lifetime instead of just giving him a fish to eat for a day to keep him trapped in his dependence on the state.
Once again,there is no prudential judgement involved in deciding how to abort, contracept, etc, because no matter how you do it the act is gravely sinful. These are direct violations of faith and morals.
We know where Ms. Sebelius stands with her implementation of the health mandate that includes the desire to spread contraceptive use including those that are abortifacients. She wants contraceptive use more available. How is that a good thing unless you don't believe what the Holy Catholic Church teaches who can neither deceive nor be deceived.
One way the pill works is as an abortifacient.
Kurt said: "You would be wrong on that matter."
No, I am not wrong on that matter. Ever read the fine print??
I agree with your statement above. I personally know no one who goes out to vote to "screw the poor, etc". ...
Mr. Ryan does not believe his policies are intended to "screw the poor". If you believe he is intent on "screwing the poor", please find the quote where he states something to that affect. I will wait for your response. If he made public statements like this, I would appreciate it if you would bring it to my attention. But please just don't interpret what you believe his policies will do. That is where prudence comes into play
You can say the same thing about people who don't agree with every law proposed by the Right-to_life Committee. Are they intentionally killing babies? Do they say they want babies killed?
Are we measuring by intent or result? Or are we applying these measures differently to advance a right-wing agenda?
contraceptive use including those that are abortifacients
Contracepties by defintion cannot be abortifacients.
but you claim Catholics cant support that budget.
Not me, the bishops.
"Perhaps Mr. Ryan believes you should teach a kid to fish so that he can eat for a lifetime instead of just giving him a fish to eat for a day to keep him trapped in his dependence on the state."
Since you like parables, problem is that Mr. Ryan's budget will ensure that our lakes and rivers get so polluted that no one will want to eat any fish (the ones that survive, anyway). And where in Mr. Ryan's budget does he ensure that kids will even learn how to fish in the first place?
Kurt,
Examples: N Pelosi and K. Sebelius want to spread contraception (intrinsically evil)to make it available on a wider scale. Contracepting is objectively sinful.
Where is the Right to Life committee promoting an intrinsically evil act? I would be very interested in that information.
Of course intention is important. If one intends to get drunk but fails to do so because he does not have enough money in his wallet to complete the task of getting drunk, he has already sinned. Getting drunk would be another sin on top of the intention. Results are important but the means to getting there cannot be compromised. Remember, the end does not justify the means.
I am sure you can see the difference between the legitimate use of prudence (an act or decision that does not include an intrinsic evil) to achieve a result.
If you believe the government can do a better job and I think that the principal of subsidiarity is a much better approach, we can disagree on that and therefore disagree on who should be providing services or distributing money. But when you throw in that the government should pay for services or so-called medications that contracept or cause abortions that is where you have crossed the line in your understanding.
Do you believe you are protecting the unborn with prudence by providing contraception that prevents their birth or in some cases causes them to be aborted? This is where your logic goes off the rails.
Would you advocate killing the poor as an option so that other poor folks or other folks in need can have access to more food or services? Is that a decision involving the legitimate use of prudence too?
Larry,
What you and most conservatives miss is that if an act is evil (i.e. contraception), it is just as evil for Big business to promote it as government. 2/3rds of employers give away abortions. 90% give away contraception. 0% of the Rifght-to-Life Committee's resources are used to protect teh unborn from Big Business. Conservatives, after all, put the private sector above the unborn.
Kurt,
It is morally wrong for any entity, business or otherwise, to promote contracteption, abortifacients, or other intrinsic evils. Do you agree with this statement?
Promoting intrinsic evils is cooperating in evil. Please check out some good moral theology books and if you would like some references I can provide.
I can't speak for everyone but I would submit that conservatives as a whole do not place the private sector ahead of the unborn. When I as well as many of my acquantances hear about big business supporting and outwardly promoting intrinsic evils like homosexuality or abortion, we make a concerted effort to minimize my purchasing with that entity.
Do you knowingly support big business or the government that openly promotes or endorses these types of intrinsic evils?
Larry,
I am glad in quiet conversations among your close circle you do this.
However, if you look at their public actions, record, statements, initiatives you will find conservative organizations silently AWOL when it comes to the immorality of Big Business but loud and vocal if it is Democratic politicans.
Go to the website of the Cardinal Newman Society, NRTL Committee, LifeSite, Family Research Council, and give me the ratio of criticism of politicans to Big Business.
Kurt, this is not just in quiet conversations. You seemed to miss the fact that we contact company representatives and voice our displeasure pointing out the problems with their position (like the recent ad from JC Penney that was appauling) that promote the culture of death. The one thing with Big Business I can opt out from buying products or services from them like I have with Home Depot and other companies. I still have a choice.
Politicians on the other hand enact, propose, or write legislation (HHS Mandate and/ or so-called gay marriage) that in many cases affects nearly everyone with no real opt out. When a Catholic politician sides with the culture of death, we must stand up to them. When the government mandates part of my tax dollars or my earings to go toward contraception, where is my choice?
Like I said before, most people of good will care about the poor (we have been to a soup kitchen and given food to people standing at the street corner, praying at abortion clinics) but the issue you seem to have is that you believe big brother is better at solving problems even to the point if it tramples upon religious liberty or truth (like marriage is between one man and one woman or contraception is morally objectionable). Of course I object to Catholics who are promoting the culture of death. I don't support those who are promoting objectively evil means unless who they are running against is promoting more objectively moral evils and scandal. My attempt is to limit the evil onslaught of the most vulnerable - the elderly and especially the babies in the womb.
Kurt, this is not just in quiet conversations.
Oh, the mute button is on. How many protests against businessmen speaking at Catholic colleges? How many public campaigns against these businesses? You claim there are the initiatives against businesses giving their employees free abortions but there is no public record of this.
I;m not buying the "we are working quietly behind the scences" story, if even it was true, why does Big Business get the kid gloves?
Kurt, kid gloves from who??
"we are working quietly behind the scences"
I did not say the above quote.
If you are not protesting Home Depot and other similar organizations that promote the culture of death, then you should look in the mirror.
Larry,
Where is the "Fortnight of Freedom" against pro-abortion businesses? Where is the CNS campaign against businessmen speaking on Catholic campuses? Why does FUS help its graduates get free abortions from businesses? Where are the USCCB letter writing campaigns against pro-abort corporations? In fact where on the USCCB is there ANYTHING against pro-abort businesses?
I note even in the one example you gave, you had to cleverly move off the outrage of direct funding of abortion to a vague reference to the "culture of death" without explicitedly disclosing that what you are talking about is Home Depot's participation in gay pride parades. You can't even come up with a single actual example of opposing pro-abortion businesses.
Kurt,
As per your request and one obvious example.
Planned Parenthood is a big business that supports abortion in a direct manner. Many faithful Catholics and others who recognize the law that is written on their hearts openly oppose Planned Parenthood by their protests and their concern for the women and the baby entering the abortion mill.
Look, I sold stock(big business) taking a loss on my investment because it came to my attention that they were conducting embryonic stem cell research.
Once again, a big business that supports abortion, gay marriage, ESCR, many times I have a choice to conduct business elsewhere or even to work elsewhere.
Why is the "pro-choosing to have access and have abortions" president and his minions don't want me to have a choice with regards to mandating that I pay for someone's contraception? The infringement on religious and civil liberties is beyond the pale. Where else can I go? No options. Nanny state is spreading its culture of death message far and wide. BTW, the phrase, "culture of death" broadly encompasses all of the anti-life and anti-family issues. You should know this. It is not a vague term. Our Holy Father, John Paul II used it often.
Unless you offer me something more, this will be my last post on this topic.
Larry,
That's the best you can come up with?
You still cannot name a single private commercial corporation even though the vast majority are in the abortion business?
Your sole example is a non-profit abortion advocacy organization. Oh, you mention others that you have personally, quietly and privately shunned without the courage to name them. But you cannot show any public campaign against them.
I think this proves my point. For profit business, so beloved by Republicans, is knee deep in funding abortions yet there are no public actions against them.
Post a Comment