Today, Rep. Paul Ryan delivered a speech at Georgetown University, an institution some of whose faculty had recently criticized him.
Here’s the crux of the letter (signed by roughly 90 faculty–I recognize a few of the names, including E.J. Dionne, Jr., and note only that precious few political scientists and economists are among the signatories):
[W]e would be remiss in our duty to you and our students if we did not challenge your continuing misuse of Catholic teaching to defend a budget plan that decimates food programs for struggling families, radically weakens protections for the elderly and sick, and gives more tax breaks to the wealthiest few. As the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has wisely noted in several letters to Congress – “a just framework for future budgets cannot rely on disproportionate cuts in essential services to poor persons.” Catholic bishops recently wrote that “the House-passed budget resolution fails to meet these moral criteria.”
In short, your budget appears to reflect the values of your favorite philosopher, Ayn Rand, rather than the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Her call to selfishness and her antagonism toward religion are antithetical to the Gospel values of compassion and love.
Leaving aside for a moment the canard about Ayn Rand, which Ryan dismisses as an “urban legend,” the question is how any government program or budget can embody the “Gospel values of compassion and love.” I’d like to highlight a few of the points that Ryan makes that could be taken as a response.
First:
The work I do as a Catholic holding office conforms to the social doctrine as best I can make of it. What I have to say about the social doctrine of the Church is from the viewpoint of a Catholic in politics applying my understanding to the problems of the day.
Serious problems like those we face today require charitable conversation. Civil public dialogue goes to the heart of solidarity, the virtue that does not divide society into classes and groups but builds up the common good of all.
The overarching threat to our whole society today is the exploding federal debt. The Holy Father, Pope Benedict, has charged that governments, communities, and individuals running up high debt levels are “living at the expense of future generations” and “living in untruth.”
We in this country still have a window of time before a debt-fueled economic crisis becomes inevitable. We can still take control before our own needy suffer the fate of Greece. How we do this is a question for prudential judgment, about which people of good will can differ.
Note that Ryan connects “civil public dialogue” with solidarity. Where reasonable people of good will disagree, solidarity, he says, demands mutual respect. We’re not in the first instance talking about solidarity with the poor or the needy, but rather simply about how we can get along so as seriously to address the needs of the neediest. A political system in which both sides engage in name-calling probably can’t muster the mutual respect and good will to accomplish anything difficult. Both sides do it, and both need to stop. (I say this while recognizing the obligation to bear prophetic witness, but even someone who takes this stance ought to acquaint himself or herself with the dimensions of the problems to which he or she is calling attention. Can we tax our way out of the fiscal mess in which we find ourselves? Can we reduce the deficit, let alone grow the budget, without attending seriously to the requisities of economic growth?)
Second:
[S]ince we meet today at America’s first Catholic university, I feel it’s important to discuss how, as a Catholic in public life, my own personal thinking on these issues has been guided by my understanding of the Church’s social teaching.
Simply put, I do not believe that the preferential option for the poor means a preferential option for big government.
Look at the results of the government-centered approach to the war on poverty. One in six Americans are in poverty today– the highest rate in a generation. In this war on poverty, poverty is winning. We need a better approach.
To me, this approach should be based on the twin virtues of solidarity and subsidiarity–virtues that, when taken together, revitalize civil society instead of displacing it.
Government is one word for things we do together. But it is not the only word. We are a nation that prides itself on looking out for one another– and government has an important role to play in that. But relying on distant government bureaucracies to lead this effort just hasn’t worked.
Instead, our budget builds on the historic welfare reforms of the 1990s– reforms proven to work. We aim to empower state and local governments, communities, and individuals–“ those closest to the problem. And we aim to promote opportunity and upward mobility by strengthening job training programs, to help those who have fallen on hard times.
My mentor, Jack Kemp, used to say, “You can’t help America’s poor by making America poor.”
In place of “compassion and love,” Ryan offers subsidiarity and solidarity, accompanied by a hefty does of pragmatism. Let’s not let good intentions substitute for good results. Yes, there are principles, but those principles have to be applied in a workable way in the circumstances we confront. Subsidiarity takes this sort of “realism” into account by giving responsibility to those who confront the issues most directly and personally. Higher levels of government should indeed provide assistance, but not every solution in a governmental solution.
As Rep. Ryan puts it,
One approach gives more power to unelected bureaucrats, takes more from hard-working taxpayers to fuel the expansion of government, and commits our nation to a future of debt and decline. This approach is proving unworkable –in Congress, in our courts, and in our communities.
This path fails to do justice to either subsidiarity or solidarity. It dissolves the common good of society, and dishonors the dignity of the human person.
Our budget offers a better path, consistent with the timeless principles of our nation’s founding and, frankly, consistent with how I understand my Catholic faith. We put our trust in people, not in government. Our budget incorporates subsidiarity by returning power to individuals, to families, and to communities.
We draw inspiration from the Founders’ belief that all people are born with a God-given right to human flourishing.
Protecting this equal right of all persons is required for solidarity– trusting citizens, not nameless government officials, to determine what is in their best interests, and to make the right choices about the future of our country.
Now, I’m perfectly willing to quarrel with or quibble about some of what he says. Can we really, for example, “trust citizens…to determine what is in their best interests, and to make the right choices about the future of our country”? Do we have the moral backbone and self-control to make the hard choices we need to make, or are too many of us too far gone down the path to self-indulgence and dependency? I’m not necessarily disagreeing with Ryan. Indeed, without an affirmative answer to the question, then we are well and truly lost. He has to have confidence in “us the people.” Let’s hope–and pray–that he’s right.
April 26th, 2012 | 2:49 pm
When the Catholic Bishops criticize liberal politicians, they speak for the Church and God Almighty. When they criticize conservative politicians, they’re a bunch of naive amateurs who ought to keep their opinions to themselves.
When it comes to a matter of understanding Catholic teachings, even when it involves federal spending, I am more willing to trust “all the bishops” than Paul Ryan.
April 26th, 2012 | 4:02 pm
Beyond the specifics, what I find most helpful as a Catholic is the ready dialogue going on between Rep Ryan and the American Bishops. The American Bishops have their charism of teaching and Rep Ryan has his mission as a lay person to be light salt and leaven within the world.
In other words, what I see happening is a very concerned and sincere Catholic carrying on an ongoing conversation not only in the halls of Congress and to his constituency but with the American Bishops, the wider Catholic community and beyond. I find this most fruitful.
In terms of the specific issue, the Catholic bishops have stated that ‘a just framework for future budgets cannot rely on disproportionate cuts in essential services to poor persons’. I agree with that as a genuine application of the principles of Catholic social teaching.
Two questions, nevertheless remain, having stated this:
Who are the poor? [I am not being sarcastic or cynical here] There are real poor in our country and there there are those who claim to be or are called poor, for example by certain forces within our country, and are really not. We need to take into account that almost half of America is not paying taxes at all, and in some cases being given ‘money’ in order to remain that way. Bureaucrats and some politicians find it better to keep things this way to keep themselves in business (bureaucrats) and in office (politicians). I am concerned for the real poor who I am afraid are still ‘falling through the cracks’.
Secondly, does the “Ryan budget” indeed make disproportionate cuts in essential services to the real poor”? I certainly do not have the competency to answer that. However the question does need to be raised.
As the grandson of a New Deal Democrat I have witnessed ‘the world’ turned upside down by the “War on poverty”, the ‘welfare system’ and now the war on the poor in the form of ‘free contraceptives’ and abortion. I long ago decided to ground myself in the Catholic social teaching rather than the ideologies of ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’. What used to be, no longer is, what seems to be, is not at all.
April 26th, 2012 | 4:12 pm
Rerum Novarum foresaw those who would inflict even worse miseries (centrally-planned utilitarian regimes) in their hapless attempts to mitigate the human suffering that is the thorn in humankind’s side. But of course never mind the actual text of the Church’s encyclicals, it’s about the spirit of Catholic social teaching.
April 26th, 2012 | 4:16 pm
Do Catholic social teachings require a government to spend money it doesn’t have?
April 26th, 2012 | 4:20 pm
Charles,
So the US Conference of Catholic Bishops doesn’t understand Rerum Novarum?
April 26th, 2012 | 4:52 pm
Crowhill,
“Do Catholic Social Teachings require a government to spend money it doesn’t have’? Absolutely not.
Nor do Catholic Social Teachings call for, advocate or promote “Big Government”. There is a role for the Government in caring for the neediest but nothing like we are witnessing.
April 26th, 2012 | 5:02 pm
Can we really, for example, “trust citizens…to determine what is in their best interests, and to make the right choices about the future of our country”? Do we have the moral backbone and self-control to make the hard choices we need to make, or are too many of us too far gone down the path to self-indulgence and dependency?
I am absolutely astounded by these questions from Mr. Knippenberg, and I think they betray a fundamental lack of understanding when it comes to the presuppositions at play in Ryan’s comments, with regard to Catholic social teaching.
The reason we’ve gone “too far down the path of self-indulgence and dependency” is precisely because of the fact that the principle of subsidiarity has been abandoned by both parties in this country. We now have a long track record of handling at a higher level what could be decided by a local community, or even the family. Social teaching — for ages now — has always stated that the “power” (for a lack of better words) belongs with the most local body able to govern it. Anything else is — precisely as Mr. Knippenberg charges Ryan with — pragmatism.
Indeed, even the preferential option for the poor can only be rightly viewed in the light of principle of subsidiarity: what Paul Ryan is saying is not that we should abandon the poor, but that perhaps — just perhaps — the poor are better served not by a bloated federal government, but rather within the context of the communities in which they live.
Of course, because people have gone so far down the rabbit hole in their dependency on federal aid, any suggestion that this might not be the best way to handle it is met with the immediate charge of ignoring the poor, or being against the fundamental option.
April 26th, 2012 | 5:03 pm
What if all the bishops are wrong? If they have encouraged the poor to remain poor through a misguided understanding of welfare economics, then they have done neither the United States nor any country where they have influence any good at all. When Jesus said that the poor are always among us, was he demanding that generations of families should remain in poverty? Wasn’t he, rather, noting the opportunity for Christians to help those in need through the charity he encouraged? Wherein the Catholic Church is passing that buck to our government, it does neither Christians nor the poor any favors.
April 26th, 2012 | 5:32 pm
David, that’s not my claim. The USCCB would claim they endorse no specific approach (let alone a centrally-planned utilitarian welfare state) or would claim to be able to solve the human suffering. They merely recommend a conscious concern for the poor. That their needs not be lost as politicians pander to others, for two examples: 1. the middle class with access (and inevitable underfunding, mismanagement and ineffectiveness) to the poor’s entitlements and 2. to manufacturers, distributors and users of services potentially funded through such entitlement systems (i.e, contraception).
April 26th, 2012 | 6:13 pm
David
The Catholic Bishops might not understand what amount of the funding constitutes essential public services, and how much is being wasted because it takes place at the wrong level.
The distinction between the moral principles, on which the Bishops deserve the assent of the faithful, and the practical application, are enormous. The economic history of the Papal States ought to provide sufficient proof of that.
April 26th, 2012 | 6:24 pm
So the US Conference of Catholic Bishops doesn’t understand Rerum Novarum?
I have a question: is there a complete absence of tensions or conflicts between them and the higher-ups in Rome?
Because I would like to know if the USCCB has the same authority as the Pope in terms of telling us what Catholics must believe? Or is this an issue where the entire Church is in harmony, in favor of not only assisting the needy but doing so in this way, even at the cost of fostering dependency and other known and documented problems?
April 26th, 2012 | 6:42 pm
It’s interesting how the “urban legend” about Ryan being a follower of Ayn Rand got started.
Ryan was a speaker at the Ayn Rand Centenary Conference in 2005 and said in his remarks there, “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.”
April 26th, 2012 | 9:09 pm
Paul Ryan follows, by his account, the teachings of a group called the Heritage Foundation.
His budget plan is taken from their ideas, and it does NOT reflect the Catholic social teachings wherein we must stand in solidarity with the poor and those who are unable to defend themselves in this world.
Perhaps Paul Ryan forgot about the time when he praised the Heritage Foundation as his mentor,
but any google search can show his connections with them.
But let people read for themselves, and decide if Ryan is speaking ‘truth’ . . .
For a detailed good look at the official Catholic Social Compendium, I recommend this vatican site:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html
April 27th, 2012 | 9:10 am
I believe Rep Ryan is doing on the ‘economic front’ what former Senator Santorum has done with what are commonly called ‘social issues’. Both are serious Catholics bringing a greatly needed ‘enlightened debate’ based on Catholic teachings into the public square.
Are both ‘conservative’, yes, however that should not stop us from seeing what is going on at a fundamental level. In both cases, they are bringing their understanding of the Faith into dialogue with the cultural elite and other forces at work in our country.
I would personally welcome a similar venture from ‘liberals’ however those self-proclaimed liberal Catholic leaders seem to be of the ‘personally against but publicly for’ or “I will not let my faith inform my public policies’. That is extremely unfortunate for all of us.
Neither Rep Ryan nor Senator Santorum are attempting to impose a ‘Catholic sharia’ on the United States of America. They are bringing the principles of the Catholic Faith, as they understand them, into dialogue with the Founding principles of our country and into dialogue with the various other religious and secular groups and elites within American culture.
They do not claim to speak for the Catholic Church-unlike some others in this country. The bishops have that responsibility. They are Catholic laity who are attempting to do exactly what they are called to do as best as they can.
Each Catholic bishop in his diocese has the ability and responsibility to be Teacher, Priest and Pastor. When the bishop teaches on the doctrines of the Church (faith and morals) in union with the pope and the rest of the bishops he teaches with authority. If he makes a statement on a given secular economic or political policy-he is basing the statement (or at least should) on a doctrine of the Church. That statement, however, needs to be heeded carefully by Catholics yet at the same time, it needs to be said, that that statement is his prudential judgment on the situation. The bishop is not infused at ordination with knowledge about all subjects [this is in no way a sarcastic remark, it is a statement of truth and humility]
The USCCB is an expression of the principle of collegiality and communion that exists among all the bishops and always in union with the Holy Father. As a body, they can assist in communication amongst each of the bishops and their dioceses (local churches) in America. They also can assist in communicating with the wider American society be it government or more general witness to the country.
In terms of what is taking place right now concerning the Federal Budget, I believe we are witnessing a very fine example of the dialogue of communion within the Church between Catholic lay politicians [Ryan, Santorum] and the bishops. The lay politicians and the bishops are doing their part-all for the common good of the larger American society
If only other Catholic lay politicians would enter into such a dialogue
April 27th, 2012 | 9:34 am
The refusal of Catholic “social justice” thinkers –let alone “activists”– to address the vast act of inter-generation theft that has brought about the looming debt apocalypse is another scandal that the Church needs to confront squarely.
April 27th, 2012 | 9:48 am
In one speech, Paul Ryan has shown more genuine intellectual interest in Catholic social teaching than an entire generation of Catholic Democrats.
April 27th, 2012 | 10:11 am
The latest assessment by the Trustees of the SS & Medicare report came out a few weeks ago. The results:
SS insolvency 2033
Medicare ” 2024
SS disability ‘ 2016
At least Paul Ryan is trying to address these issues. Perhaps the Bishops may talk to their brethren in Greece, Spain, & Italy on what happens when the government does into
unsustainable debt.
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/TRSUM/index.html
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/04/23/why-the-medicare-forecasts-are-particularly-cloudy/
April 27th, 2012 | 10:36 am
Rep. Paul Ryan @ Georgetown University. Into the belly of the beast!
April 27th, 2012 | 11:10 am
That a country must not spend beyond its means, of pile up debt to leave for future generations is good moral and economic advice. However, it is not what Catholic Social Teaching is about. If people want to hail Paul Ryan as a hero for making a serious effort to tackle debt problems, fine. But there is nothing specifically Catholic about that. Here are the seven principles of Catholic Social Teaching. If a country is so poor that it truly cannot afford government programs to help the poor, Catholic Social Teaching would not require going into debt and eventual bankruptcy as the solution. But I think the American Bishops don’t find cuts in service for the poor coupled with tax cuts for the wealthy to be in harmony with Catholic Social Teaching.
April 27th, 2012 | 11:50 am
1) Eligibility for a program to help the “poor” is not the same as actual poverty.
2) Private property should be safeguarded for the rich and poor.
3) Class warfare masquerading as progressive taxation is NOT solidarity
4) The government has routinely failed every principle of Catholic Social Teaching. Ryan’s skepticism of government is correct and Catholic.
April 27th, 2012 | 12:05 pm
David,
I think the bishops criticisms hinge upon two words: “disproportionate” and “essential”.
And the bishops use of these words indicates a certain humility on their part. They’ve not given concrete dollar amounts. They’ve not provided a laundry list of what is “essential”. Because there is an understanding that it is their place to give lay politicians guidelines, but it is not their place to dictate certain specifics and usurp certain types of authority. They have moral authority to teach, but not absolute authority to enact.
Incidentally, we also see this expressed in the current abortion, contraception, and homosexual marriage–bishops aren’t calling for police to break into homes, confiscate contraceptives, and split up cohabiting homosexuals. They are calling people to repent of sins and reform their lives. They aren’t punishing them in society for doing so.
April 27th, 2012 | 5:27 pm
What Ryan understands far better than his critics is that (as the principle of subsidiarity recognizes) under pressure from an expanding government, horizontal ties –which unite people to each other in communities– are replaced with vertical ties, which bind atomized individuals to the state. Moreover, the high taxes that pay for expanding government institutions further undermine traditional institutions and communities, as well as the economy that generates the wealth that the entire community –including government—depends upon. One can understand why those who have made a religion of the state support this; why people of other faiths do is beyond me.
April 27th, 2012 | 6:20 pm
Let’s be clear — American Bishops deserve our attention and respect whenever they decide to offer us their teaching and wisdom on moral matters. Certainly, as Mr. Nickol points out, if the Bishops tell me that my budget resolution “fails to meet these [meaning Catholic social teaching] moral criteria” I should perk up and listen. And as far as I understand, Rep. Ryan did engage the Bishops last year in a dialogue about his budget.
Unfortunately, matters of economics and budgets, while certainly moral matters, are also prudential matters that hinge on arguments dealing with facts, statistics, philosophy, etc. Mr. Nickol himself highlights this problem when he gives the game away by saying: “But I think the American Bishops don’t find cuts in service for the poor coupled with tax cuts for the wealthy to be in harmony with Catholic Social Teaching.” Because if that is indeed what the American Bishops believe then that is a gross mis-characterization and over-simplification of the Ryan budget and betrays a left-wing, or liberal economic world view that is a prudential matter, not a moral matter. There is also a right-wing, or conservative economic world view that involves arguments about economic growth and welfare programs that don’t encourage dependency. It is Paul Ryan’s contention (and mine and many GOPers) that the way to help the poor is to help them get a job. And to do that we need a growing, healthy economy – which we believe we cannot have with the current levels of debt, government spending and regulation. That’s why we need to cut spending and the size of the federal government. Enacting Ryan’s budget is one way to promote more opportunity for everyone by increasing economic growth (and letting everyone keep more of their money while simplifying the tax code will help spur growth).
But we also make another argument – that the current programs designed to help the poor aren’t doing a very good job partly because they encourage dependency (and so need to be cut so the poor are encouraged to go find jobs or better jobs) or they aren’t even targeted at the really needy or they aren’t working well because they are being run by federal bureaucrats and so we need to promote innovation through the States via block grants (and other ideas which can be found here: http://reformmedicaid.org/).
In the United States, we have a false perception of poverty inflated by the fact that we count only pretax monetary income, not any benefits (public housing, Medicaid or other insurance, food stamps) in calculating it (for a single parent of two children, this amounts to roughly $17,500 a year). Poverty around the world has significantly declined from where it was twenty years ago. According to the World Bank, the goal of cutting global poverty to half what it was in 1990 by 2015 was achieved five years early, in 2010. The truth is not that we have a real rise in poverty in the United States – it’s that we have expanded the definition of what living in poverty really means. And as ever-expanding government programs replace earned income, we create higher marginal costs for leaving these programs in ways that trap people within them – even, if as under Medicaid, they offer the worst outcomes for the very people they are designed to help of any program in the country. This is the true moral failing of this approach: that the government offers those in need a hand, but they soon find themselves trapped in a ghetto from which escape is nearly impossible.
Consider, for instance, this new report regarding food stamps: “Ever since the food-stamp program was created in 1964, notes Bloomberg, rolls have expanded and shrunk in tandem with unemployment rates. But that link’s been broken recently. Why is that? One possibility is that it’s easier to get on food stamps than ever before. The stimulus bill, for instance, allowed able-bodied unemployed adults to receive benefits for longer than three months. That provision expired in 2010, but at least 46 states have received waivers from the federal government to continue this program. (Apart from that tweak, reports USA Today, eligibility standards remain what they were before President Obama took office.) Another factor in the increase is that more Americans who have always been eligible for food stamps are signing up. According to the Department of Agriculture, only 54 percent of those who qualified for food stamps signed up in 2002, but that number rose to 72 percent in 2009” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/even-as-economy-picks-up-food-stamp-rolls-expand/2012/04/26/gIQAjqdWjT_blog.html).
It’s easier to get in, and harder to justify getting out. Would you rather trust the job market, or trust the reliability of food stamps? This is an obvious decision for a person in need and we need to change their decision making calculus.
April 29th, 2012 | 8:32 am
J Bob
No government that has control of its currency will ever run out of money, for it can always monetise its debt. The only real difference between government bonds and currency notes is that the notes are issued in smaller denominations and do not bear interest, so one can be used to replace the other, as occasion requires.
The inflation produced by such a policy removes a burden of dead debt from the economy. Only imagine the parlous position the UK and the USA would be in today, if the pound and the dollar had their 1914 (or even their 1945) purchasing power.
The situation of Greece, Italy and Spain illustrate this perfectly.
April 29th, 2012 | 6:14 pm
[...] More on Paul Ryan and Catholic Social Teaching (First Things “First Thoughts”, April 26, 2012). Joseph Knippenberg examines the Georgetown faculty’s criticisms of Ryan, and excerpts from Ryan’s address that might be taken as a response. [...]
April 29th, 2012 | 7:31 pm
David,
It is well known that not all moral issues carry the same weight. The gap between the Democrats and Republicans on the issue of poverty, for example, is not as enormous as you suggest. On abortion, however, most Democrats do not even grant that the entity in the womb is a baby in a meaningful sense. The parties are miles apart.
You can read about the weight of moral issues in a CDF document from then-Cardinal Ratzinger here: http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/cdfworthycom.htm
April 29th, 2012 | 11:42 pm
Michael PS,
“No government that has control of its currency will ever run out of money, for it can always monetise its debt.”
This is, I am afraid, sophistry. One has defaulted when one’s lender is not made whole.
April 30th, 2012 | 3:41 am
Gian
When a government repurchases its bonds with new currency, its total liabilities remain the same. All that happens is that one liability is substituted for another.
There is no duty to indemnify a creditor against loss. If I borrow 100 quarters of wheat, my obligation is to restore 100 quarters; the fact that the market price of wheat has fallen in the meantime does not entitle the lender to more. Had the price risen, the loss would have been mine. Every loan of money is, in effect, a currency future.
April 30th, 2012 | 9:24 am
Michael PS,
By way of explaining why Gian is correct and your statement is wrong, go back and take a look at the Weimar Republic (Germany) after WWI, or modern Zimbabwe.
What you’re proposing destroys countries financially by causing hyperinflation. While we’ve been lucky to escape it thus far, when Obama has proposed measures similar to your proposition, China has gotten quite angry and threatened to curb their lending to us.
April 30th, 2012 | 9:43 am
It is well known that not all moral issues carry the same weight.
Mike P.,
What you say may be true, but I don’t see how it is relevant to a discussion of the Ryan budget. Ryan doesn’t require that spending for the poor be cut so that abortion may be restricted. He requires that spending for the poor be cut so that there can be tax cuts for the wealthy.
April 30th, 2012 | 10:23 am
David Nickol -
A few short responses to a few of your responses. First, you have asserted that “all the bishops” are against Ryan’s plan based on the letter from Bishop Blaine. As you know, Rick Garnett has questioned whether this characterization is accruate. It might be nit-picky, but I think an individual letter from a committee chairman carries less weight than a statement from the President or, even better, the entire conference itself. Moreover, and as I’m sure you know, the letter is not a matter of “doctrine,” it is a series of observations of Ryan’s budget based on seven principles (which you link to) which we all agree on.
Second, I found your opening comment curious: “When the Catholic Bishops criticize liberal politicians, they speak for the Church and God Almighty. When they criticize conservative politicians, they’re a bunch of naive amateurs who ought to keep their opinions to themselves.”
What I find curious about that comment is that it precisely mirrors what I think a lot of the time when I read comments over at dotCommonweal (where I know you are a frequent commenter). When the Bishops are critical of Ryan, those folks are all for it, but when they issued their recent statement on religious liberty, both the official line and the vast majority of the comments there are that the bishops are nothing but a bunch of partisan hacks mimicking the worst talking points of far right wing groups. And I don’t seem to recall you pointing out the hypocrisy in those reactions there.
Finally, you say that the deficit is a legitimate issue, but not the point of Catholic Social Teaching. I guess I agree with that, but would add that Ryan’s (and conservatives in general) concern about the deficit is not an end in itself, but concerns the effect of the deficit on the economy and future economic growth. Large, unfunded government liabilities will eat up every available discretionary dollar for things that liberals like to “invest” in, and will drag down job growth, innovation, etc. I would think that both Catholic liberals and conservatives would agree that the poor are better off with a growing, healthy, vibrant economy – and in that light, concerns over the deficit are a social justice concern.
April 30th, 2012 | 11:13 am
First, you have asserted that “all the bishops” are against Ryan’s plan based on the letter from Bishop Blaine. As you know, Rick Garnett has questioned whether this characterization is accruate.
Josh D.,
I think it is fair to say the USCCB (or somewhat equivalently, the Catholic Bishops) have criticized the Ryan Budget. See the following:
I have no doubt that if you took a poll of all the bishops, they would not unanimously endorse all the points in the USCCB letters to congress. I also have no doubt that if you took a poll on any particular issue among all the people who make up the Obama administration, they would not be in perfect accord with one another. However, it makes sense to talk about the positions of the Obama administration, and it makes sense to talk about positions of the USCCB.
I think you are reasonably correct that the attitude toward bishops’ statements on the Commonweal blog is the converse of what it is here on First Thoughts. I do try to be objective, but sympathizing more often with the liberal side than the conservative side, I am not as sensitive to liberal hypocrisies as to conservative ones. I also think there are more critics of the “party line” among the regular (dissenting) commenters at Commonweal than there are here on First Thoughts. But I can point out recent instances where I have taken a distinctly different view than the the most liberal commenters over on Commonweal, to the point where I got quite an unpleasant series of criticisms from the moderator. I an be just as annoying over there sometimes as I am here. :P
April 30th, 2012 | 12:51 pm
“I think it is fair to say the USCCB (or somewhat equivalently, the Catholic Bishops) have criticized the Ryan Budget.”
Fair enough in light of the comments you’ve linked (although I still don’t think a Catholic is required to agree with it). I remember a few years back Catholic liberals raising a fuss over “creeping infallibility”; seems that has a tendency to pop up in lots of places. One final nit-pick: while I understand the spirit of it, the analogy of “the Obama administration” to “the USCCB” is at all accurate for the simple reason that individual bishops retain full authority and jurisdiction independent of the USCCB, something which the Treasury secretary, for example, doesn’t enjoy in the Obama administration.
Finally, I have seen you challenge the prevailing view over at Commonweal; and have been treated similarly, especially by the moderators who can be a very snarky bunch.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact