US Bishops, Nuns Agree: Romney, Ryan Budget 'Fails Moral Test'
August 13, 2012
The day after the LCWR completes its annual meeting the GOP presumptive nominee for president of the United States, Mitt Romney, announced that he has selected Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan to be his VP running mate. What is interesting about this announcement is that one of the few things about which the United States Bishops have explicitly agreed with the United States Women Religious in terms of politics and faith is the immoral status of the so-called "Ryan Budget."
I predict the Catholic Left will dismiss this as a fluke and bash the bishops for purportedly not caring about the poor, and the Catholic Right will dismiss this as unauthoritative and bash the bishops for not fitting their narrowly selective understanding of Church teaching. Care to prove me wrong?
40 Comments
Comments are closed.
Julia, while I am in limited agreement about the left and the right, I am left feeling uneasy with this post. Fr. Dan is someone who I have read for a long time and one who I know in real life; are you agreeing with him? Disagreeing? Saying something else? I guess I am not sure what to make of this post, other than the fact that I do agree that this is one area where the USCCB and the LCWR agree.
As to the right and left – how I grow weary of our own self-made designations meant to prop ourselves up and decry our brothers and sisters. This is no fault of yours, but where does it ever get us? Never to Christ who is the center, in whom there is no east or west. All the shouting makes me want to keep posting about Sunday’s Epistle about reviling and so forth. I have to watch myself too, I have my own temptations to lash out in anger, at both parties and all candidates.
Fran, I apologize. I am in complete agreement with Fr. Dan’s post endorsing the position that the nuns and bishops are taking. I guess in my haste to anticipate pushback, I took a tone that was defensive enough to obscure my agreement and may even have contributed to the angry cacophony that I too am so weary of. I think that’s understandable in view of the kinds of comments I’ve gotten in the recent past, but I’m still trying to learn how to “prophesy from the center” in ways that open up reasoned dialogue rather than just adding to the noise, and I’m afraid I may have failed at that here.
Julia, no apology necessary. I was just confused. Haven’t we all contributed to the deafening sounds? I know that I have, seemingly when I have most wanted to do otherwise.
And your trying to learn how to “prophesy from the center” – my life’s work. Usually left as an unmet goal I’m afraid. *sigh*
Keep at it- you say many important things via Vox Nova and I was simply confused this time around.
Julia,
A respectful tone from all would be admirable.
However, the Catholic Right would be entirely correct that one can be a good Catholic and respectfully disagree with the Bishops’ analysis of the Ryan Budget. And the Catholic Left, in a respectful way, might express appreciation for the bishops’ statements against the Ryan budget but regret that the bishops did not move beyond issuing statements and engage in activities such as the multi-million dollar “fortnight for freedom” campaign or the parish based post card campaign against the non-existent “FOCA” launched between Obama’s election and inauguration.
I truly hope the common ground that the bishops and the LCWR have regarding the Ryan budget will open people to The Way of Jesus which should be the motivating force for opposing what is truly not pro-life. This should bring all of us together.
Two Bishops criticised the plan, Bishop Pates and Bishop Blaire and they are entitled to their opinion.
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/federal-budget/upload/Letter-to-Congress-Federal-Budget-2012-03-06.pdf
Bishop Earl criticised those 2 Bishops criticism of the budget and Bishop Naumann has said solutions that place emphasis in enrolling people in government programs have been ‘tried for decades’ and failed.
http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=14639
Bishop Morlino of Wisconsin has said Ryan’s ‘approach’ was responsible and ‘in accordance with Catholic principles’ on EWTN’s world over live:
http://www.faithinpubliclife.org/blog/wisconsin-catholic-bishop-contradicts-usccb-to-support-paul-ryan
MORLINO: Congressman Ryan has made his prudential judgment about how best to serve the long-term needs of the poor. He has done that in accord with Catholic principles. I don’t have to approve his decision or his budget or anything else. What I do approve of is that he is a responsible Catholic layman who understands his mission and carries it out very responsibly. I feel very strongly about that. The details of his solution are not mine to approve or disapprove, that’s not my field
I’m not sure where you’re coming from with this, but I think what it demonstrates is that the bishops are as polarized as the laity. There is something to be said for organizational and even hierarchic structure if the polemic, within this structure, translates into the the kind of balance we get in most of the official statements that come from the USCCB – a much better balance than they tend to get credit for among said polarized laity, which is the point I was trying to make even if I missed the mark with the way I said it.
I would also add, Julia, that whenever EWTN is brought into the conversation you can be assured of a right-wing opinion. It is an eternal word alright!
It’s also worth pointing out that this is not simply a case of one bishop’s opinion against another’s (or two others’). The USCCB has clarified that Pates and Blaire were writing in a representative capacity on behalf of the USCCB, and that Morlino is dissenting from the official position of his brother bishops as a body.
That is true, but Morlino’s statement is not without merit, just as you can give equal merit to the proposition that some have made various prudential judgments about how best to protect unborn life. Bishops don’t have to approve their decisions or their legislative proposals or anything else. The details of various drafts of legislative text to protecting life are not for a bishop to approve or disapprove, that’s not thier field.
Its also useful to point out that the USCCB isn’t a magisterial body or a constitutive part of the Church. That Bishops Pates and Blaire were writing in “a representative capacity” on behalf of the USCCB isn’t all that relevant. As was pointed out before, it wasn’t just Bishop Morlino who was against this either.
I think Bishop Morlino was spot on-this is not the bishops’ field and it absolutely isn’t the field of the bloated bureaucracy of the USCCB. What we have here is a prudential application of what Ryan and the GOP thinks is the best way to go about with a national budget. Catholics can, in good conscience, agree or disagree on this point. I throw no anathemas at people who are going to disagree with my opinion on this matter. Personally, I think we need something like this to get this country off the super-destructive path of spending borrowed Chinese money like a drunken sailor. If we keep going the way we are going, the poor are going to have to worry about a whole lot more than not being able to be on the handout-slavery dole of Big Brother.
Yep, just as I predicted.
Now Bishop Morlino has issued a statement to his diocese stating the same in a more official capacity as ordinary of his local church reiterating the same-we can disagree on application. Ryan (agree with him or not) is no dissenter, I’m glad Bishop Morlino has stood up to defend his reputation, as he put it.
Dominic,
As someone who prudentially supports the bishops in their opposition to the Ryan budget, I respect your polite disagreement with them.
As Catholics, we are hopefully united on certain principles — care for the poor, human life, worker association, racial justice, family life. But when it comes to putting any of those principles into a particular legislative proposal, this is the field of expertise of the lay faithful, each following his or her own discernment. It is even more the lay faithful’s individual discernment as to the selection of candidates for public office.
I think it is good that the bishops speak on proposed legislation, even when I disagree with them and even though their statements are never binding on the lay faithful.
Kurt,
I think all sincere Catholics are united on the principles you mentioned, I do not see how they could not be. I agree wholeheartedly that putting these principles to work in a legislative proposal should be the field of expertise of the lay faithful. After all, we are supposed to be Christ to the world in a way the clergy and religious cannot be on account of their state in life.
I too think it is good to hear the bishops and clergy speak on proposed legislation, especially to remind us of what principles are at play in these issues. I agree that their statements (whether from the USCCB or any one or group of them) is not binding. However, they are people too and have a vote and have a voice in how this government should be run.
I just would like others to note the concord and agreement Dominic and I have, witnessed above. We both can fully agree that what the bishops state on public policy is serious and worthy of respect, but nothing binding. Neither of us picks and chooses, suggesting the statements we agree with are binding and those we don’t agree with are foolish. And Dominic and I have very different views on public policy matters.
I think this is a refreshing note. Thank you, Dominic.
I was just marveling at that myself. Thank you both.
Because of this Vice Presidential pick, we are assuredly going to be stuck with Obama for another four years. Imagine trying to get some sense out of Ryan on foreign policy. Biden will easily prove him to be an economics policy wonk (and of the most retrograde “Starve Your Granny” type) and little else. Imagine Ryan trying to find Aleppo on a map!
I am no fan of either Ryan or Biden (or their respective partners) however, I think you are selling Mr. Ryan short. In a vice presidential debate, Ryan will make bumbling Joe look like a….bumbling joe. Sad that this is the best either party has to offer. I may actually sit out an election for the first time since I have been able to vote.
Brian –
I want to say that I am fan of both Dr. Jill and of Janna.
I think what Dr. Jill has done for the families of veterans and helping to focus attention on the needs of community college students has been outstanding.
Janna is a fine wife and mother. I have some differences over her work for the tobacco lobby, but she is an intelligent and hard-working individual.
I am convinced that the bishops aren’t the problem or a problem. Their “house” is just as divided as the greater American Catholic political landscape. Bishop Morlino’s affirmative position carries no more magisterial weight than Bishops Pates and Blaire.
With all charity I must say the following.
In the greater scheme, the Ryan budget is but one political question. Many of us, especially VN regulars, enjoy discussing the intersection between politics and religion. Many persons, and especially many religious Catholics, are looking for one or two issues which give them a sure rule on how to vote and remain believing Catholics. Catholic Answers’s “Five Non-Negotiables”, as well as the focus on abortion and same-sex-marriage as the two most important of the five, perhaps provides a sense of security for persons who don’t have the time to consider or struggle with complex concepts such as the impact of changing GDP percentages on social programs.
I have tried to describe the Ryan budget from both the conservative and liberal standpoints, only to receive immediate dismissal from some of my family members. “Abortion is wrong! I vote Republican.” It’s tempting to dismiss such people as ignorant or even stupid for not considering the wide variety of current issues in politics. The question is not intelligence but rather how one approaches complexity and uncertainty. Those who see politics through dichotomous choices must also be respected as brothers and sisters, and not belittled or insulted.
Maybe I should frame that last sentence and put it above my desk. You speak to a perplexing question: how do we confront problems without becoming the very things we’re against?
I would strongly suggest to everybody here that, to get a perspective on social justice issues–and even issues related to sexual morality–that you go OUTSIDE the mainstream AMERICAN Catholic perspective, and try to see these issues from the perspective of the universal Church, and even its topmost hierarchy in Rome. If you do, I think you will perceive a much higher priority being placed on issues of social and economic justice than on the issues of sexual morality that so roil a profoundly Puritanical society whose religious culture is basically Protestant, and not Catholic. Catholics all over the world are not nearly so concerned even with abortion (which they rightly see as a side-effect of deprivation, in their societies). I once read about a Roman curia cardinal who was being asked all about these “traditional family” issues, and these sexual morality issues that obsess “conservative” American Catholics, and, while he agreed that they were relevant to political choices Catholics have to make in America, he added that American Catholics refuse to see the “elephant in their living room,” which was, he insisted, the impoverishment being spread by global, neo-liberal economic policies, and the American people’s role in creating the “injustices.”
Amen! Digby, you got it spot on!
Jordan:
Help me understand, Jordan. You describe and decry the blinkered perspective of the Catholic Right, with their excessive attention to the pelvic issues. Then you applaud a particularly dismissive characterization of culturally conservatives Catholics that evidences the equally blinkered perspective of the Catholic Left.
Jon Haidt gets it right when he says that morality is a team sport. It binds and blinds. The eagerness of all too many VN correspondents to categorize and caricature the ‘other’ never ceases to disappoint.
Mike McG…[August 14, 2012 9:58 pm]: Jon Haidt gets it right when he says that morality is a team sport. It binds and blinds. The eagerness of all too many VN correspondents to categorize and caricature the ‘other’ never ceases to disappoint.
Thank you for alerting me to Jon Haidt and The Righteous Mind. I’ll be sure to read this book when some time opens up.
I agree with Haidt’s fundamental premise that morality is akin to team allegiance. I am also aware that moral tribalism is intrinsically human. This is where I err: I wrongly think that Catholic tribalism can be defeated by the destruction of what I imagine to be “christianism” and a turgid moralism. I have merely switched illusions.
Although I am convinced that, for example, a near-exclusive focus on abortion criminalization at the expense of other human dignity issues, as well as an intense focus on heterosexual and marital life will not necessarily renovate societal respect towards all life, I must respect those who believe that “pronatalism”, and not the “consistent-life-ethic”, is magisterial. Personal hurt also colors my disdain: as a gay man, I am extremely sensitive towards those Catholics who exhibit bigotry towards LGBT people and any marginal group. Yet abuse at the hands of self-identified “orthodox Catholics” does not give me license to lump Catholicism and bigotry together and then discard both. Indignation is not self-righteous when one refuses to consider the affective and intellectual motivation of his or her “enemy”.
Thank you for your criticism.
Thank you once again, Jordan, for teaching me a thing or two about how to take criticism well.
Jordan:
I share Julia’s appreciation of your response. In it you model openness to ‘the other.’
You named the elephant in the room, too, when you said “personal hurt also colors my disdain.” The deeply principled views we share here contended and neuralgic. I suspect that few VN correspondents escape feelings of alienation when their core beliefs meet with mockery and contempt. Imagine if we could connect with each other around our common woundedness rather than divergent positions.
Finally, Haidt quotes Baruch Spinoza to good effect: “I have striven not to laugh at human actions, not to weep at them, not to hate them, but to understand them.” I’m pleased that you’re taking an interest in Haidt’s The Righteous Mind. I’m convinced that we desperately need a grounding in moral psychology before we tackle moral theology. I think it would be great if Julia, the VN contributor most resistant to binary thinking, would lead us in an exploration of Haidt’s work.
The seven practices of charity toward our neighbor, based on Christ’s prophecy of the Last Judgment (Matthew 25:35), that will determine each person’s, not presidents, politicians, nor government bureaucrats, final destiny was taught us from the Baltimore Catechism:
1. Feed the hungry
2. Give drink to the thirsty
3. Clothe the naked
4. Shelter the homeless
5. Visit the sick
6. Visit those in prison
7. Bury the dead
For those who claim that Jesus was a big-government socialist provider with regard to helping those in need and reducing individuals personal responsibility to only “Love the Neighbor’ and replacing it with government programs is a misreading of His message. Jesus Christ made the point “to render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s” with no guidelines as to how the Romans were to spend the tax monies.
“For you will have the poor always with you” Matthew 26.11 and nowhere in the New
Testament does Jesus Christ lay the responsibility for caring for the poor, the sick the hungry or thirsty, the homeless or any oppressed people on any governmental body. He did not cite King Herod, the priests of the temple, the local politicians or the Roman powers as the source of Charity. He made it an individual responsibility time after time in His sermons, in His parables and in His own acts. The Good Samaritan was not an example of “Love thy neighbor” because he stopped at the inn to make a 911 call but because he acted, providing aid, comfort and financial assistance to his neighbor. Jesus Christ’s teachings cannot be used be used to support states becoming the major or only source of charitable acts.
Eventually, hopefully sooner not later, Catholic Bishops and nuns will realize that the old adage “he who pays the piper calls the tune” is true.
I don’t think the nuns or the bishops or any of us here are saying that the state should be the only source of charitable acts. That is a straw man. Granted, it’s one that many Democrats have embraced as an overreaction to the current Republican obsession with minimizing government as an end in itself, including its social responsibility. And I do not by any means deny, nor do the nuns and bishops, the individual responsibility to love our neighbor. But to call it merely an individual responsibility is just as reductionistic as it would be to say that this responsibility should be replaced entirely by government programs. If we really care about people’s basic needs being met, we should be advocating this at all levels, from individual action within local communities to social justice and public policy, not arguing over whose job it is or isn’t.
Julia – Mr. Mosman is right on the target. And might I add that “poor” is a relative term. The “poor” of the US have food, shelter. education, health care, cell phones, job training, etc ad nauseum provided by the American taxpayer. Shouldn’t the US taxpayer be helping the poor in Africa and Asia before we address the “poor” of the US?
Mr. Painter, I live in India, and I can guarantee you that the poor of India are much happier, and live, in general–especially in villages–much fuller and more emotionally rich lives than the poor of America. It probably has everything to do with expectations: America’s civic religion and her ideologies make implicit promises that the society is not delivering on, and so your poor feel economic injustices much more grievously than the poor of the Third World do. Our poor here expect to suffer during their lives and are grateful for any pleasant respite from suffering that their lives afford them, and, actually, it’s part of the dominant religion here that they should accept suffering with equanimity. Many of the Westerners living here wish that India’s poor would be more assertive; it would probably make government and social services more responsive to problems if they were. What the upper middle classes of America and Europe have to begin to understand, though, is that YOUR poor are angry, and, considering the lies and hypocrisy that characterize public discourse there, they have a right to be.
Mr. Mosman makes his case for individual acts of charity. By dismissing social acts of charity, he equally damns Catholic Charities and other collective actions as well as public programs. If we are to accept his thinking, the Church needs to get out of the business of running all of these charity programs so individuals can play their proper role.
In discussions about “the poor”, it’s important that each participant clarify who “the poor” are from his or her perspective before attempting to (mis)characterize the position of another person.
—-
While in Bethany at the house of Simon the leper, Jesus remarked after a woman anointed him with nard (an expensive perfume),
” ‘For this ointment could have been sold for more than three hundred denarii, and the money given to the poor [τοῖς πτωχοῖς].’ And they scolded her. But Jesus said, ‘Let her alone; why do you trouble her? She has performed a good service for me. For you always have the poor [τοὺς πτωχοὺς] with you, and you can show kindness to them whenever you wish; but you will not always have me.’ ” (Mark 14:4 — 7 NRSV) [my additions in brackets]
Both Jesus’ opponents and Jesus himself use the Greek substantive noun πτωχός (ptōchos) for “a poor person”. Arndt-Bauer-Gingrich-Danker BAGD 2ed 1958 notes that the basal meaning of the adjective πτωχός, ή, όν is “begging” (sv BAGD 2ed. πτωχός, ή, όν 1). BAGD also notes that πτωχός in this context might also signify “the unfavorable circumstances of the people from an economic point of view; the thought is also that since they are oppressed and disillusioned they are in special need of God’s help, and may be expected to receive it shortly.” (sv BAGD 2ed. πτωχός, ή, όν 1b)
—-
BAGD‘s exegesis of πτωχός suggests that Jesus’ reference to “the poor” in this synoptic episode might not exclusively refer to material impoverishment. Rather, “the poor” refers at once to two mutually inclusive possibilities: material impoverishment and social marginalization. In my opinion, both material impoverishment and social marginalization must be considered when evaluating the historical thought of Catholicism on social action and justice.
Apropos of the comments of Patrick, many of the poor I encounter as a social worker would welcome the day when assistance from their Christian sisters and brothers supplants governmental assistance. But until the day when Christians acquit themselves of their obligations toward the poor, I expect to use whatever leverage I have to induce the government to assist them.
Regarding Rick’s comments: yes and no. Yes, the US taxpayer should be doing a great deal more to assist the poor in Africa and Asia but no, not at the expense of the poor in our own country. Absolute poverty and relative poverty are very different phenomena but each torments the poor in its own way. The poor here and abroad are in competition for our personal and governmental support but it doesn’t have to be a zero sum game. The solution is increased assistance to both.
It is not the government’s duty to care about the poor. It is each individual person to care for the poor as Christ teaches in the Gospels. However, even if it were the government’s duty to care for the poor, I cannot support such support a government that at the same time supports abortion, homosexual marriage and every sort of abomination before God. If Catholics vote the the Pagans (democrats) because they think they are supporting the poor then they are as mislead and blind as were the scribes and pharisees of old.
It is not the government’s duty to care about the poor.
The succession of popes from Leo XIII to Benedict XVI, who wrote the encyclicals that make up modern Catholic Social Teaching – as well as the US bishops and women religious and, for that matter, arguably a number of Patristic theologians – would beg to differ. Of course, CST teaches that it is not exlusively or primarily the government’s duty to care about the poor, but that governments AND individuals AND organizations at all levels in between all have this moral duty. It is not an either/or. Indeed, that very dichotomy – reducing the moral duty to the poor to the role of either governments or individuals exclusively – is the great social danger that CST consistently warns against.
After all, doesn’t the government have a duty to care for the unborn? Why would that duty not extend to any other disadvantaged or marginalized group?
What is “government”? What is care? Certainly, the federal government should have very little direct responsibility for the poor. The feds should keep the country safe, provide laws that emobidy our principals and create a structure that allows each state and citizens as much freedom as possible. The states can do more with their laws as their residents see fit. The poor should be provided for on the local level. Successful programs should be celebrated and duplicated but never mandated above the local level.
We can debate the practical applications of this until the eschaton, but perhaps the better question, and one we should all be asking, is, “Who is my neighbor?”
For Kurt Aug 20, 2012
While pointing out that Jesus Christ never laid the task of aiding the needy on any governmental or religious body, his immediate followers established methods and provided means to aid widows, orphans and the needy. St Paul collected what one might call alms from foreign lands to send to Rome to aid his fellow Christians. The Church’s role in providing acts of charity was never the question, only the secular government’s role in defining and dictating to religious organizations how and what they can or cannot do or must do if they receive government aid.
“but we need the government’s help to do that ” totally ignores the old adage “he who pays the piper calls the tune”and the results are there to see as Catholic adoption agencies in two States have ceased operation as government aid stopped. Why? The Catholic agencies refused to place children with same sex couples on religious beliefs grounds which was trumped by secular anti-discrimination laws. The government is using secular laws, regulations and rules to force Catholic charities to renounce their Catholic beliefs in order to obtain government funding or reduce or give up charitable activities. This is the ultimate goal of every socialist or dictatorial nation, the Federal government as the only source of aid and assistance.