My apologies for being late to this iteration of the conversation. The charms of my parent’s home, my sister’s pontoon boat, and my lovely little grand-niece (is that the proper term?) have distracted me over the past few days.
Here’s only one of the latest salvos fired by those who seem to wish to excommunicate Mr. Ryan:
Ryan has set himself up as a distinctively Catholic candidate who is making a major effort to ensure that his policy decisions are in accord with the will of the Almighty as explained by the teachings of his Church. That’s a high bar to set and, to Ryan’s credit, he has not shrunk away from answering specific questions about how he sees that happening….
But a “faithful Catholic” is also supposed to follow the guidance of the Bishops. In the Catholic hierarchy, unless the Pope or the Vatican speaking in the Pope’s name has weighed in, the Bishops are the designated authentic explainers of the official line….
So if Ryan claims to be speaking in the name of his Church and the Bishops continue to have sharp and specific disagreements with much of what Ryan is saying, aren’t the Bishops morally and theologically obligated to shoot Ryan down again? And with greater specificity?
This is wrong in so many ways I don’t know exactly where to begin. But the best place, it seems to me, is at Ryan’s Georgetown speech, rather thoroughly canvassed on this site at the time. The first point is a simple one. Rather than claiming to speak “in the name of his Church,” Ryan was much more modest (my emphases):
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.
Ryan’s critic seems to think that he should simply submit to the guidance of the bishops. But is not an authoritative exposition of the doctrine different from its application? The bishops may be uniquely situated to explain to Roman Catholics inside and outside of political life what their obligations are, but since they are not themselves omniscient, they lack the detailed knowledge and expertise that have to be applied in particular situations. In Thomistic terms, human law is supposed to be an application of natural law, both of which are naturally and humanly imperfect expressions of human participation in eternal law. I’ll grant the bishops their expertise as expositors of natural law, but that in and of itself doesn’t make them knowledgeable about how best to accomplish the ends natural law calls for. God only knows (literally) how to accomplish those ends. Policy experts like Paul Ryan might indeed know better than the bishops about the consequences of the various choices we might be called to make.
This brings me to my second point. Many have pointed out (most recently, Carson Holloway) that the application of natural law to our situation requires the virtue of prudence, a mastery of the details of our circumstances (such as is possible for a human being), with the goals and the weights given to particular considerations by good moral character (or, if you will, a well-formed conscience). We would all be hard-pressed to deny Paul Ryan’s detailed policy knowledge. Those who disagree with Ryan’s prescriptions are left with two options. They can say that “reasonable people can disagree” about the weights given to particular considerations or about the consequences of certain choices. (How much do we have to spend on national defense? Will there be as much economic growth as Ryan expects if the tax rates are lowered?) Or they can seek to deny his moral character, reducing his “prudence” to mere “cleverness,” such as any sharper is capable of.
Given its track record, I think I know which choice will most tempt the Obama campaign. I hope (and pray) that others will grant him what he called for in his Georgetown speech:
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.
Let us have that charitable conversation. Perhaps, rather than “shoot Ryan down,” as RealClearReligion’s Jeffrey Weiss thinks they should or will, the American bishops can take the lead in promoting that charitable conversation.
August 14th, 2012 | 11:42 am
I saw next to nothing in the speech that dealt in any detailed way with CST and how it may be interpreted to back conservative policies. There is a lot for conservatives to like in the speech, and there are a few Catholic “code words” like subsidiarity (every politically conservative Catholic’s favorite word).
And the conflict with the USCCB is real:
As I recall, Ryan characterized the disagreement as criticism from individual bishops, but the USCCB pointed out that in this case, the USCCB spoke for all the bishops.
This, of course, does not make Ryan a “bad Catholic.” I have no doubt that he is utterly sincere that his way is the best way to implement Catholic Social Teaching. But the American bishops disagree with at least some of Ryan’s approach, and while that doesn’t make him a “bad Catholic,” it certainly puts him in an odd position if he tries to be a spokesperson for Catholic Social Teaching.
From the (admittedly very little) I know of his thinking, he speaks in terms of a battle between individualism and collectivism, with the former being good and the latter being evil instead of looking for a balance between the two. It seems to me that is difficult to harmonize with Catholic Social Teaching about the role of government. But that doesn’t make him a bad man or a “bad Catholic.” It does make him someone who has a lot of explaining and convincing to do to those who who sincerely want to see Catholic Social Teaching implemented.
August 14th, 2012 | 12:03 pm
Thanks for the shout-out and your vacation sounds lovely. With all due respect, you draw nuances that were lost earlier this year when this issue first blew up and are not likely to be more obvious now. And to be clear, I’ve got no real opinion about what the USCCB should do.
But back in April, the USCCB was troubled enough that Ryan’s budget was being presented as in conformation with Catholic teachings to issue a pretty stern set of letters. If they felt obligated then to declare themselves — and not Ryan — as the authoritative umpires of what is and is not in said conformity, and given that Romney’s intro doubled down on Ryan’s putatively faithful Catholicism, I’m just wondering how or if the USCCB will react.
I have no theological dog in this fight. And I *really* have nothing to say about which side is right based on canonical law and the like. Beyond me, to be sure. But since the bishops asserted their authority then, seems like the stakes are even higher now?
August 14th, 2012 | 12:35 pm
More importantly, I think, is the fact that he has not faced strong criticism from “the bishops,” but rather from a couple who sit on a committee (namely, Bishop Pates, who chairs the Committee on International Justice and Peace) and are notorious for their belief that government-mandated programs are the best way to combat poverty. The USCCB wasn’t speaking as a unified body when it supposedly “criticized” Paul Ryan.
What you don’t hear — and indeed, what you will never hear — is from the overwhelming majority of bishops who support Paul Ryan’s suggestion that a larger reliance upon community subsidiarity is the best way to assist the poor. George Weigel wrote an excellent article recently about this shift in American prelates, and from my experience in the Church, he is 100% correct.
August 14th, 2012 | 12:54 pm
As has been clear for some time, the bishops have a tendency to weight in on matter for which they have no particular e parties, and indeed seem positively incompetent. The application of Catholic social principles to concrete situations absolutley requires phronesis (prudence), which itself requires understanding that, as Aristotle points out, there can be no science of politics or ethics. Given their record on political questions, and more generally, there’s every reason to doubt the phronesis of the bishops, especially as a body that issues statements generated by staffers.
August 14th, 2012 | 1:23 pm
The U.S. Catholic Bishops, as long as they are in union with the Successor of St. Peter, teach with authority on the principles of Catholic Social Teaching. They have no particular expertise or authority regarding how the application of those principles translates into a certain number of immigrants that should be allowed into the country each year or exactly what practical, realistic governmental policies to use to lift the poor out of poverty and dependency.
As they say, you can give a man a fish or you can teach him to fish. And yes, there are those who will never be able to “fish” themselves and to abandon them is to abandon Christ Himself, and then one day hear the most frightening words in the Gospel addressed to you: “Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink. …”
On the other hand, St. Paul says to the Thessalonians, “For also when we were with you, this we declared to you: that, if any man will not work, neither let him eat.” Most people, I think, want to work and the charitable thing to do is to give them the opportunity to have the dignity that comes with being self sufficient.
The Bishops are the experts on the principles, but I think Paul Ryan is probably better qualified to determine what is practical and realistic in terms of implementing those principles. The Bishops have every right as American citizens to express their opinion as to what they think is practical and realistic policy, but they have no right to present that as though their personal opinions on matters outside the realm of their apostolic competence are binding on Catholics. They aren’t.
August 14th, 2012 | 1:36 pm
Oops.
“their personal opinions on matters outside the realm of their apostolic competence is binding on Catholics. It isn’t.”
should have been
“their personal opinions on matters outside the realm of their apostolic competence are binding on Catholics. They aren’t.”
August 14th, 2012 | 1:44 pm
More importantly, I think, is the fact that he has not faced strong criticism from “the bishops,” but rather from a couple who sit on a committee . . . The USCCB wasn’t speaking as a unified body when it supposedly “criticized” Paul Ryan.
Asclepius,
This is incorrect. See this article in The Hill:
August 14th, 2012 | 2:18 pm
I am not educated to the level of most people who comment here. However I have had a good deal of education in Catholic Theology and Catholic Social Theory as expressed by JPII. Putting that aside I would make two comments.
1. The Catholic Bishops have never been particularly good at judging the social and political ramification of economic strategies. In fact, we would not be in the pickle we are in now with HHS and the trampling of our rights of conscience and religion if they did not go off and blindly support any politician or political idea that had the phrase ‘care for the poor’ in it. They and their economic advisors forget it is the Christian community that Jesus exhorts to help the poor.
Our bishops are people too, with their own prejudices and foibles. When they comment on things outside of morals and theology ( of which economic strategies are only tangentially involved) they are not infallible by any stretch of the imagination. And let us not fail to remember that not ALL the bishops criticized Ryan’s plan. It is a sad commentary that many of our Bishops have been co-opted by the progressive line that the state is responsible for the good of everyone. The state is responsible for the protection of everyone’s rights in such a way that the common good is supported. It is the Christian’s responsability as individual AND especially in community, to help their fellow man. When give the government the right to support some groups at the expense of others or worse, to be the benefactor of all, it is a short step to having the government tell us what we can believe and not believe and what we can and cannot do as Christians individually and in community. And isn’t that exactly what has happened because of the ignorance and naivete of our Bishops up to now. The right of religious conscience, our First Amendment right of religion are only being challenged because we relinquished what was our exclusive purvue, Charity, blindly assuming the government as our partner. Charity is our job. To help realize the Kingdom of God on earth is our job. If God is our King, our secular government can never be the arbitrator of charity.
2. I thank God that there is someone in politics who, regardless of whether or not we agree with his ideas, takes his faith seriously not simply in private, but in the public sector. The Founding Fathers considered religion a necessity to off set the corruption that is inevitable with the power inherent in government. John Kennedy started the slope to locking people of faith behind the doors of their houses of worship. I for one, think it is a wonderful turn of events that another Catholic is the one to step up and courageously say, No to that scullduggery and throw the doors open to the public square again.
We need to thank God for Paul Ryan and pray for more men and women like him to step up and serve their country.
August 14th, 2012 | 2:56 pm
One of the things that has been stated in a teaching document of the Church (I think JP II’s Centessimus Annus, but not sure) is that the Church does not have a specific economic system to propose. It rightly claims competence to express basic principles, but at the level of actual policy, does not purport to dictate details.
That same encyclical does have some negative things to say, however, about the harm done by what it calls the Social Assistance State. Near as I can tell, it is referring to the most eggregious examples of nanny-statism in Europe, for example. The kind of statism which the Left is clamoring for us to adopt. That’s my interpretation. In this regard, it’s my opinion that the US bishops who most often speak about “social teaching” (including the bishop who wrote the letter criticizing the Ryan budget proposal) are at odds with the former Holy Father’s assessment of the Social Assistance State.
In addition, notwithstanding the lack of claim to propose a specific system, social teaching from Rerum Novarum onward has condemned actual socialism outright. [It also condemns what it calls "unbridled capitalism" (by which I think it means libertarian-type laissez-faire capitalism) and has harsh words to say about "consumerism."]
Confused by all this? Me too! For now, I’m gonna go with Ryan and his policies, which I believe are the best instantiation of ALL the moral principles which apply to our public policy. I will also continue to tithe my income and apply the tithe according to where I think charitable contributions are best applied.
August 14th, 2012 | 3:13 pm
we would not be in the pickle we are in now with HHS and the trampling of our rights of conscience and religion if they did not go off and blindly support any politician or political idea that had the phrase ‘care for the poor’ in it.
It seems to me that Catholics on the left speak as if they think it is a choice between caring for the poor vs. not caring for the poor, while Catholics on the right speak as if they think it is a choice about what is best for the poor.
The question of whether a given plan for supporting the poor works or not – or whether it is the best, or most efficient way to meet a need – is a variable that the left simply isn’t recognizing, while to the right it is “the” variable.
August 14th, 2012 | 4:02 pm
Back in April, Ryan was interviewed on this topic by Relevant Radio, a Catholic radio network based out of Green Bay Wisconsin. I think this is well worth listening to:
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Ftinyurl.com%2Fc2t4zx8&h=aAQGW-mcH&s=1
August 14th, 2012 | 4:03 pm
David Nickol
There is nevertheless truth in what the others are saying. At their June meeting, several bishops took exception with what they saw as the committee’s partisan critique of the Ryan plan, naming both the immorality of the deficit and the committee’s past lack of attention to the principle of subsidiarity.
August 14th, 2012 | 4:10 pm
This has been and will continue to be an ongoing debate. Perhaps at the end of the day most if not all of us can ‘agree to disagree’ lol However, that being said a few clarifications can and should be made:
Rep Paul Ryan does not have the charism infallibility and should not be portrayed as having it [in this way both those on the left and the right actually coincide: to hear each groups speak one would think that he is either totally right or totally wrong in his application of the Catholic Social Teaching-this kind of expectation (from the right or left) is simply not helpful
The 'bishops' statement' did not in fact come from the whole body of Catholic bishops but from a committee led by the bishop of Stockton California. The Letter was merely a statement that sought to assist those voting on the budget-in other words it was in the category of a 'friend of the court'
The several letters sent to Congress by the committee needs to be understood properly as well. The Bishops have the ability to teach the doctrines in matters of faith and morals of the Catholic Church. Part of these doctrines are the principles of Catholic Social teaching. When teaching those principles, for example, the dignity of the human being from the moment of conception to natural death-that is authoritative teaching. When a bishop or a committee of bishops comments on-for example budget issues-he or they are speaking on prudential matters-judgment calls which can be accepted or not accepted.
What is important is to note how the full body of bishops responded to this whole broohaha at their June Convocation. The reemphasized the need to teach (versus making policy statements), having the humility not to go beyond their expertise of teaching [few if any are economists], as well as not becoming partisan which many Catholics believed the criticisms of the Ryan budget bordered on if it didn’t cross the line.
So far, this backs not only the expertise of Rep Ryan but enables him to continue to prudentially apply Catholic Social Teaching in this matter.
However, at the same meeting the bishops decided that a full teaching on the theological principles concerning the economy is needed. The bishops will vote on a preliminary text in November [after the elections]
This is a signal that neither conservatives nor liberals ‘get’ Catholic Social Teaching on the Economy fully.
August 14th, 2012 | 4:36 pm
There is nevertheless truth in what the others are saying.
Jack Perry,
Yes, I certainly agree. The whole USCCB did not collectively write and unanimously endorse the letters criticizing the Ryan budget. But the letters were, according to the USCCB itself, official communications of the USCCB as an organization. Asclepius was incorrect to claim the criticism was from “a couple” of bishops, and while the USCCB may not have been “speaking as a unified body” (in the sense that the document wasn’t approved and signed by every bishop), it was the USCCB speaking as an organization. There were not a couple of rogue bishops who dashed off letters. If it had been anything like that at all, the USCCB spokesperson would not have spoken up to state that the letters were indeed from the USCCB itself as an organization.
August 14th, 2012 | 6:05 pm
Ummmmm….anyone heard of the encyclical Caritatas in Veritate? Anyone?
I bet I can find a whole web page with nearly a hundred links on it about this encyclical. Hosted by First Things.
Paul Ryan has worldview depicted at the Heritage Foundation in October 2011 that describes a conflict of the Makers vs. Takers. This is the talk that so fascinated and impressed the Wall Street Journal to support and insist on this VP nominee.
Read that to know how Rep. Ryan speaks to his masters.
August 14th, 2012 | 11:47 pm
The Ryan budget is dead. Xs for eyes, 4 feet up in the air. Just ask Mitt Romney.
Mitt Romney has stated repeatedly for anyone who has ears to listen that his (Mitt Romney’s) TBA budget will go forward, only if Mitt Romney is elected. Like Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney has never said he “speaks for the Catholic Church” so the bishops have little need to be concerned that Catholic social teachings will be misconstrued, misinterpreted or misrepresented with a Romney presidency. They can return their focus to the destruction of religious liberty by the Obama presidency.
Funny how Mr. Weiss didn’t grasp this important development with the Ryan budget…
August 15th, 2012 | 9:44 am
The Pope needs to clean the USCCB of the misguided Bishops. When did the government become the organization that is in charge of “charity.” The church should be the one feeding and helping the poor, not the government.
There would be more money in the pews to help the poor if the government wasn’t taking more than its share. Each dollar given to the government, 37% goes to the overhead. 2% of each dollar given to Food For The Poor goes to overhead. I’d rather have my money go to a Catholic Charity that is much more efficient than the government.
Eliminating waste, means testing, and making the government “charity” waste less money is the charitable thing to do.
August 15th, 2012 | 10:49 am
The church should be the one feeding and helping the poor, not the government.
Paul,
Note the following:
A huge amount of what Catholic charitable organizations do is done with government money. The three Catholic Charities adoption agencies that have closed rather than consider same-sex couples as adoptive parents were not “shut down.” They closed because they would not receive any more government contracts, and without being employed by the government, they couldn’t survive. I don’t think Catholic hospitals could continue to operate without federal money (Medicare, Medicaid, and various grants).
Neither the Catholic Church nor all the churches, synagogues, and mosques combined could take over the job of feeding the hungry, housing the poor, and caring for the sick if the government would get out of the “charity” business.
August 15th, 2012 | 12:42 pm
Per:
“The three Catholic Charities adoption agencies that have closed rather than consider same-sex couples as adoptive parents were not “shut down.” They closed because they would not receive any more government contracts, and without being employed by the government, they couldn’t survive.”
This is not only wrong, it’s a lie. And a lie that must be refuted for the spiritual health of our country. Catholic Charities closing down its adoptions in Boston did not hinge on the receipt of government money – it had to close down because of the narrowness of the anti-discrimination laws.
Even if Catholic Charities Boston had ceased taking government money and ceased being a state contractor of adoptions for kids – it could not – by anti-discrimination law refuse to adopt children to gay couples. When the Supreme Court of Massachusetts ruled in favor of same-sex marriage, the majority ruled that “only animus against gay people could explain why anyone would want to treat opposite-sex and same-sex couples differently.”
The Catholic Church does not have a animus against gay people. Sorry, it just doesn’t. Its refusal to adopt children to gay couples is based on its teachings — the Vatican has made it perfectly clear that placing children with gay couples violates teachings. Massachusetts refused to respect the Catholic Church’s teachings and wrote its anti-discrimination law accordingly.
There’s one guy who understands all of this better than any Republican in the country – Mitt Romney. Cardinal O’Malley asked then Governor Romney for a religious exemption so they could continue placing needy kids in homes. Romney said he lacked the legal authority to grant one by executive order. So the Cardinal and the Governor went to the state legislature to ask them to grant the Catholic Church a religious exemption. The answer was a resounding NO.
Catholic Charities in Boston was forced by anti-discrimination laws that discriminated against Catholic teachings to shutter its adoption services. Adoption services that had helped some of the neediest kids in Boston for 100 years. What was the Human Rights Campaign’s response to all of this? Why the most expected naturally -criticize the bishops:
“These bishops are putting an ugly political agenda before the needs of very vulnerable children. Every one of the nation’s leading children’s welfare groups agrees that a parent’s sexual orientation is irrelevant to his or her ability to raise a child. What these bishops are doing is shameful, wrong, and has nothing to do whatsoever with faith.”
Closing the adoption services had everything to do with faith just like the non-compliance with the HHS mandate today does. What happened in Boston to Catholic charities adoptions services back in 2006 is now happening across the country with the entire Catholic Church, schools, hospitals and charities and the HHS mandate. The Catholic Church can stop receiving all government money, again all government money and it still would not be able to comply with the HHS mandate. Because it’s not about the money, it’s about the very real violation of religious liberty written into the HHS mandate.
Thankfully the Bishops get this. This why all of the Bishops are on board with not complying with it and Cardinal Dolan is suing the government using the largest law firm in the world.
To spin this lie, like President Obama does – see remarks made in Toledo- that it is the receipt of government money that is at issue – is to cause further abuse of the Bishops as well as trying to further separate the faithful from the Bishops.
Beyond disgusting.
Defend the HHS mandate. Defend adoptions to gays. Stop trying to distract people as well as destroy the reputations of the Bishops. And while you’re at it, the reputation of Paul Ryan.
As for the original question posed by the author of this post – Paul Ryan the (bad or good) Catholic?
Since no one else has mentioned it, including Mr. Weiss, Paul Ryan’s bishop in late June of this year said for all who wanted to hear it that Ryan is a “responsible Catholic layman” who has created a budget “in accord with Catholic principles.”
As a contrast, try to find one Catholic bishop much less their own, who says this about Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi or Kathleen Sebelius.
August 15th, 2012 | 2:44 pm
Mrs. Jackson,
Can you show me some documentation? Here is just part of what I found, which shows that (a) Catholic Charities was indeed working under government contract and (b) had been placing children with same-sex couples since 1987, and (c) the anti-discrimination law had nothing to do with same-sex marriage.
From the Boston Globe, October 22, 2005.
Now, here’s the interesting question. After working with the state of Massachusetts for almost 20 years, having signed up with the state in 1987 to place children from Foster Care, and having agreed not to discriminate, why did Catholic Charities abruptly pull out of the adoption services business in 2006?
August 15th, 2012 | 4:51 pm
David, I know you do not need documentation. You know why Catholic Charities is no longer adopting kids out but merely refuse to accept. However others here may actually not be aware of what happened back in Boston in 2006 and in light of what is going on with Cardinal Dolan, the USCCB, Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney and the HHS Mandate, I decided to take the time to show people what happened. First up from the Gay Rights Movement Timeline via infoplease:
2003 -In November, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that barring gays and lesbians from marrying violates the state constitution. The Massachusetts Chief Justice concluded that to “deny the protections, benefits, and obligations conferred by civil marriage” to gay couples was unconstitutional because it denied “the dignity and equality of all individuals” and made them “second-class citizens.” Strong opposition followed the ruling.
2004 -On May 17, same-sex marriages become legal in Massachusetts.
From Witness Magazine
The Immorality of Banning Gay Adoption
By Irene Monroe
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
“There is something mean-spirited and wholly sinful about a church [Catholic Church] that would rather stop facilitating adoptions than comply with state laws that ban discrimination.
“There is also something politically amiss when a governor like Mitt Romney, who was elected to represent all the people of Massachusetts, forsakes state law and files legislation that promulgates a religious bias disguised as religious freedom.
“‘It is a matter beyond dispute, and a prerequisite to the preservation of liberty, that government not dictate to religious institutions the moral principles by which they are to carry out their charitable and divine mission,’ Romney wrote lawmakers in a letter accompanying his ‘Protecting Religious Freedom’ bill.
“Selective discrimination always hurts the targeted group, but when gays are banned from adopting, the greatest harm done is to the children.
“Romney’s legislation also states that it will be legal for ‘any religious or denominational institution or organization’ to ‘take any action’ to provide adoption services that promote its religious principles as long as the groups do not ‘discriminate among prospective adoptive parents on the basis of race, creed, national origin, gender, [or] handicap.’”
“Of course, the list excludes sexual orientation.
“Selective discrimination always hurts the targeted group, but when gays are banned from adopting, the greatest harm done is to the children.
“While it is easy for elected officials to politically extol why gay adoptions are wrong and for clerics to religiously pontificate why gay adoptions are antithetical to its church’s sacred tenets, it is hard to fathom why politicians and clerics would use their power to further an agenda that benefits no one — particularly not the parentless children in need of adoption….”
March 2006 -from the desk of gov. Romney:
DEFENDING RELIGIOUS LIBERTY, TO FILE BILL EXEMPTING RELIGIOUS GAY ADOPTION REQUIREMENT
Calling it an issue of “religious liberty,” Governor Mitt Romney today said he plans to file
legislation to permit religious institutions to perform adoptions without violating the tenets of
their faith.
Today, the board of Catholic Charities voted to stop doing adoptions because of state law
which requires that gays be given equal consideration for the placement of children.
Because of the Church’s teaching, Catholic agencies may not provide adoptions to gay
parents.
“This is a sad day for neglected and abandoned children. ln this case, it’s a mistake for our
laws to put the rights of adults over the needs of children. While I respect the board’s
decision to stay true to their principles, I find the current state of the law deeply disturbing
and a threat to religious freedom,” said Romney.
“I ask the Legislature to work with me on a bill that I will file to ensure that religious
institutions are able to participate in the important work of adoption in a way that always
respects and never forces them to compromise their firmly held beliefs,” he said.
Romney’s bill would authorize religious organizations to provide adoption services
consistent with their beliefs by Creating an exemption from the state’s nondiscrimination
laws.
All Massachusetts adoption agencies are licensed by the state Department of Early
Education and Care (EEC).
ln addition, since 1977, the state Department of Social Services (DSS) has contracted with
Catholic Charities to provide special needs adoption services to children with severe
emotional and physical needs. Currently, the waiting list for children in DSS care awaiting
adoption is close to 700.
——
The Massachusetts Legislature never passed the bill. There is no evidence it was even held up for a vote. The Senate was controlled by Democrats.
———
BOSTON –”The Boston Archdiocese’s Catholic Charities said Friday it would stop providing adoption services because state law allows gays and lesbians to adopt children.
“The social services arm of the Roman Catholic archdiocese has provided adoption services for the state for about two decades, but said it would discontinue once it completes its current state contract. It said that the state law allowing gays to adopt runs counter to church teachings on homosexuality.
‘The world was very different when Charities began this ministry at the threshold of the 20th century,’ the Rev. J. Bryan Hehir, president of Catholic Charities, and trustees chairman Jeffrey Kaneb said in a joint statement. ‘The world changed often and we adapted the ministry to meet changing times and needs. At all times we sought to place the welfare of children at the heart of our work.
“‘But now, we have encountered a dilemma we cannot resolve,’ they said.
“Boston Archbishop Sean O’Malley, who had sought an exemption from the law, said the church was faced with a choice between its faith and the state law.”
The Church chose faith. Again in 2012, the Church is choosing faith.
David, thank you for asking for documentation. The documentation proves beyond a reasonable doubt what you were 100% wrong when you wrote to Paul:
“The three Catholic Charities adoption agencies that have closed rather than consider same-sex couples as adoptive parents were not “shut down.” They closed because they would not receive any more government contracts, and without being employed by the government, they couldn’t survive.”
August 16th, 2012 | 5:28 am
Joe De Vet
It is important to remember what Populorum Progressio has to say about the rôle of government: “Individual initiative alone and the interplay of competition will not ensure satisfactory development… Organized programs are necessary for “directing, stimulating, coordinating, supplying and integrating” the work of individuals and intermediary organizations.
It is for the public authorities to establish and lay down the desired goals, the plans to be followed, and the methods to be used in fulfilling them; and it is also their task to stimulate the efforts of those involved in this common activity.”
August 16th, 2012 | 10:49 am
David, thank you for asking for documentation. The documentation proves beyond a reasonable doubt what you were 100% wrong when you wrote to Paul:
Mrs. Jackson,
On the contrary, your articles confirm what I said. Catholic Charities of Boston, working under government contract, complied with anti-discrimination regulations from 1987 until it voluntarily closed down in 2006:
The adoption services of Catholic Charities was not “shut down.” Catholic Charities ceased to provide adoptions services because someone (no doubt the Archbishop of Boston) found out it had been complying with anti-discrimination laws since 1987, decided to put a stop to it, then asked for a special exemption, didn’t get it, and shut down. If the state was going to insist that Catholic Charities abide by anti-discrimination laws, and Catholic Charities made clear its intentions to refuse, there was no way it could continue being a state contractor. So it pulled out.
August 16th, 2012 | 2:20 pm
Bishop Morlino of Madison informs us in his latest column: “Thus, it is not up to me or any bishop or priest to approve of Congressman Ryan’s specific budget prescription to address the best means we spoke of. Where intrinsic evils are not involved, specific policy choices and political strategies are the province of Catholic lay mission. But, as I’ve said, Vice Presidential Candidate Ryan is aware of Catholic Social Teaching and is very careful to fashion and form his conclusions in accord with the principles mentioned above. Of that I have no doubt. (I mention this matter in obedience to Church Law regarding one’s right to a good reputation.)”
August 17th, 2012 | 6:51 pm
Josh:
Thanks so much for Bishop Morlino’s comment that sets the true parameters of Catholic teaching authority vs. the domain of the Catholic politician operating in his legitimate sphere. Today the ordinary Catholic in the pew is confused and/or disenchanted by much of what the USCCB puts out in public policy commentary. The protocol for such statements coming from episcopal conference committees is long overdue for an overhaul. When Bishops speak from these committees and without mature deliberation as a body, outside their diocese, they rarely inspire and usually confound.
As noted in the initial reflection, so many pundits, Bishops included, are set to moralize their side of what, in many points, is truly a difference in political/economic policy.
The entire globe is dealing with a crisis stemming from the unbridled holdouts of the socialist/ Keynesian model of solidarity; it simply has spent itself out of existence. The libertarian/free market critique- from Hayek to Friedman- has earned its place in the sun, and while playing heavily on subsidiarity and individualism, it is not about trashing the poor but seeing their plight from a different perspective. Consider how many previously depressed global sectors in Asia, Africa and Latin America have been uplifted in the globalization of free market/trade policies. Libertarianism, for its part as some experts have said, is not a governing policy, but a critique of government. It is a good critique to wage- let’s have at it.
For those left leaning Bishops quick to use the Democratic Party’s class envy talking points, I beg them to consider that while greed and excessive individualism is a danger in a thoughtless free market, intoxicating power and control is a far more subtle and a far more dangerous enemy on the populist left, and historically far more anxious to annihilate the Church’s influence in culture. They have to consider that government is not the only organ of solidarity, other organs could develop if government were not already there taking their place and absorbing their resources.
It is my hope that the USCCB will curtail the authority of committee ‘pontification’. Issues such as illegal immigration, health care reform in general and the national debt are far too complex for the moralizing discourse these committees have tried to wage in recent years. I much prefer to hear Bishops speaking from their dioceses, and Catholic experts in these fields thrash out the details, and read the wisdom found in worthwhile articles in First Things.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact