Does Ryan have a “Catholic problem”?

posted at 6:31 pm on August 19, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

That question has come at me several times in the nine days since Paul Ryan joined the Republican ticket as Mitt Romney’s nominee — and not meant in the same way that JFK had a “Catholic problem” in 1960.  People wondering about Ryan’s relationship with Catholic voters usually results from Ryan’s attempts to restructure federal spending, or his supposed devotion to Ayn Rand.  The last question is easiest to answer, since I’ve read Rand and admired the ideas in Atlas Shrugged while rejecting completely the philosophies of objectivism and atheism Rand embraced.  One hardly needs to be an atheist to appreciate limited government, especially after the HHS contraception mandate being imposed on religious organizations and charities.  Reading Atlas Shrugged and appreciating the wisdom of limited government is not an excommunicating act in the Catholic Church, I assure you.

What about Ryan’s budget?  It’s no secret that liberals dislike it, although some conservatives might wonder why, considering the moderate approach Ryan took toward deficit and entitlement reform.  Our colleague Kate Hicks notices a new group of Catholics who want Ryan to have a change of heart … in the middle of an election:

It’s the ultimate in Catholic double standards: a website called www.PrayForPaulsChangeOfHeart.org launched this week, calling for Catholics to pray that he abandons his Path to Prosperity budget in favor of something more in line with the Church’s social justice teachings. If you click around, you can also find a page with one sentence requesting prayers for Vice President Joe Biden, noted adamant supporter of the pro-choice cause. (It says nothing of Kathleen Sebelius, whose Mass attendance doesn’t exactly jive with her record ofeschewing established Catholic doctrine.)

In condemning Ryan’s budget, the site pulls from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ letter to Ryan, which outlines the criteria the Church feels a Catholic policymaker ought to consider when crafting budgetary policy …

Of course, it’s very easy for a Catholic capitalist to dispute each of these claims – first and foremost, how does it serve the poor if the government continues down its current path to bankruptcy? – and this potential for argument creates a crucial distinction between budgetary policy and life issues. A budget has room for interpretation, and there are different ways to construct the social safety net; abortion, however, is a clear-cut issue, a literal matter of life or death.

So I’m going to be a little blunter about it: the Catholic Church needs to shut up about Paul Ryan’s budget.

Well, I’m not going to go that far, because this group isn’t the Catholic Church.  It’s a small group of the laity — in fact, it might be just one person with an amateurish website, one that offers no explanation of whether the owner of the site is even Catholic at all.  The act of offering a Rosary prayer for the “Conversion of Representative Paul Ryan” (one of the events listed on the main page) comes close to the sin of judging another person’s standing with God, something that a proper Catholic would recognize as dangerous ground. One can certainly judge the standing of a member within the faith (although that’s best left to pastors and bishops), but “conversion” strongly implies that the petitioner doesn’t consider Ryan a real Catholic.  I’m skeptical of this website being anything more significant than someone’s idea of gadflyism.

My good friend Deacon Greg Kandra notes a somewhat more established group in the laity supporting Barack Obama,  and their shift in emphasis from 2008 as “pro-life” in support of Obama to an economic message in 2012, presumably in response to Ryan’s selection as Romney’s running mate:

Catholics for Obama has launched its 2012 initiative with a focus on economic issues, in an apparent shift from its 2008 presentation of the presidential candidate as “pro-life.”

“We endorse the President because of his tireless focus on economic security for middle-class families,” the national co-chairs of Catholics for Obama wrote in an Aug. 13 letter, kicking off their effort to target a key voting bloc in the closely contested election.

Proclaiming their commitment “to our faith and our country,” the 21 signers devoted much of their letter to jobs and the economy, along with a variety of foreign policy items which have been seldom-mentioned in the presidential campaign. ….

The letter cited the Catholic teaching “that every human being is made in the image of God,” as a warning against Republican policies that the signers said “would shred our nation’s compassionate safety net” by “gutting” social assistance programs.

Here, though, we have no real change in status.  These same accusations against Republicans were also offered as secondary arguments in 2008 by this group, and are made every electoral cycle by liberal Catholics.  Ryan’s not going to win their vote simply by sitting in the same pews, but that’s not the same as arguing that Ryan damages Romney’s Catholic draw by being on the ticket.

The key question of whether Ryan’s budget violates his faith gets addressed best by the man who has the authority to speak on Ryan’s standing in the church — his bishop.  Bishop Robert C. Morlino addressed this accusation in a column on Thursday to members of the Diocese of Madison, instructing that Catholic social teaching involves both solidarity (with the poor) and subsidiarity — the principle that support for the poor should come from the sources closest to them, the individual members of the church, or the local communities.  Where “intrinsic evil” is not involved, the political solutions for the ills of the world should come from the laity, and not the church itself:

In these most fundamental matters, a well-formed Catholic conscience, or the well-formed conscience of a person of good will, simply follows the conclusions demanded by the ecology of human nature and the reasoning process. A Catholic conscience can never take exception to the prohibition of actions which are intrinsically evil. Nor may a conscience well-formed by reason or the Catholic faith ever choose to vote for someone who clearly, consistently, persistently promotes that which is intrinsically evil.

However, a conscience well-formed according to reason or the Catholic faith, must also make choices where intrinsic evil is not involved. How best to care for the poor is probably the finest current example of this, though another would be how best to create jobs at a time when so many are suffering from the ravages of unemployment. In matters such as these, where intrinsic evil is not involved, the rational principles of solidarity and subsidiarity come into play. The principle of solidarity, simply stated, means that every human being on the face of the earth is my brother and my sister, my “neighbor” in the biblical sense. At the same time, the time-tested best way for assisting our neighbors throughout the world should follow the principle of subsidiarity. That means the problem at hand should be addressed at the lowest level possible — that is, the level closest to the people in need. That again, is simply the law of human reason.

That doesn’t mean that Catholics have to like Ryan’s budget; there are plenty of areas of debate that it produces, just as any complex public policy will do.  It isn’t a matter of Ryan’s Catholicism, though, and Bishop Morlino is particularly emphatic when it comes to those who claim that in the debate:

It was no shock at all for me to learn that our diocesan native son, Paul Ryan, had been chosen to be a candidate for the Vice Presidency of the United States. I am proud of his accomplishments as a native son, and a brother in the faith, and my prayers go with him and especially with his family as they endure the unbelievable demands of a presidential campaign here in the United States. It is not for the bishop or priests to endorse particular candidates or political parties. Any efforts on the part of any bishop or priest to do so should be set aside. And you can be assured that no priest who promotes a partisan agenda is acting in union with me or with the Universal Church. …

As one looks at issues such as the two mentioned above and seeks to apply the principles of solidarity and subsidiarity, Catholics and others of good will can arrive at different conclusions. These are conclusions about the best means to promote the preferential option for the poor, or the best means to reach a lower percentage of unemployment throughout our country. No one is contesting here anyone’s right to the basic needs of food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, etc. Nor is anyone contesting someone’s right to work and so provide for self and family. However there can be difference according to how best to follow the principles which the Church offers.

Making decisions as to the best political strategies, the best policy means, to achieve a goal, is the mission of lay people, not bishops or priests. As Pope Benedict himself has said, a just society and a just state is the achievement of politics, not the Church. And therefore Catholic laymen and women who are familiar with the principles dictated by human reason and the ecology of human nature, or non-Catholics who are also bound by these same principles, are in a position to arrive at differing conclusions as to what the best means are for the implementation of these principles — that is, “lay mission” for Catholics.

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.)

So what does constitute the criteria the church uses to decide when to weigh in on policy matters?  Morlino is also emphatic on what constitutes intrinsic evil:

However, the formation of conscience regarding particular policy issues is different depending on how fundamental to the ecology of human nature or the Catholic faith a particular issue is. Some of the most fundamental issues for the formation of a Catholic conscience are as follows: sacredness of human life from conception to natural death, marriage, religious freedom and freedom of conscience, and a right to private property.

Violations of the above involve intrinsic evil — that is, an evil which cannot be justified by any circumstances whatsoever. These evils are examples of direct pollution of the ecology of human nature and can be discerned as such by human reason alone. Thus, all people of good will who wish to follow human reason should deplore any and all violations in the above areas, without exception. The violations would be: abortion, euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, same-sex marriage, government-coerced secularism, and socialism.

The answer to whether Ryan has a “Catholic problem” in terms of gaining or losing Catholic votes for the GOP will only be answered in the exit polls after the election.  Without question, though, Ryan does not have a problem with the Catholic Church or its teachings, as Ryan’s own bishop makes plainly clear.  While the laity and the ordained may have issues with Ryan’s budget proposals, they don’t rise to the level of intrinsic evil, and so those individuals and groups that engage in the debate over budgetary matters speak for themselves, and not for the church itself.  As far as offering Rosaries for conversion, we Catholics should be doing that for the whole world, and in particular for an end to abortion and the other intrinsic evils Bishop Morlino notes in his excellent column.

Addendum: Via ConservativeLA on Twitter, Antony Davies and Kristina Antolin take up the opposite argument — that government programs represent involuntary coercion and therefore cannot be acceptable to Catholics:

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has long supported government interference in the economy as a means to help the poor. But we suspect the bishops haven’t fully thought this through: If God really did favor a top-down approach to poverty reduction, why wouldn’t He establish a government with the power to wipe away poverty on demand instead of leaving things to chance and the possibility that someone like Mr. Ryan would come along and mess up His plans?

Perhaps we dehumanize the poor when we treat them as nothing more than problems to be solved, and we dehumanize the rich when we treat them as wallets to be picked.

Wealth and poverty are catalysts for bringing the rich and the poor together in community, and community is the hallmark of the church’s mission on Earth. Government is not community. Government is one of community’s tools, a coercive one we use when it is necessary to force people to behave in ways they would not otherwise behave voluntarily.

But that word—voluntarily—is key, and it’s where Mr. Ryan’s religious detractors go awry: Charity can only be charity when it is voluntary. Coerced acts, no matter how beneficial or well-intentioned, cannot be moral. If we force people to give to the poor, we have stripped away the moral component, reducing charity to mere income redistribution. And if one really is as good as the other, the Soviets demonstrated long ago that it can be done far more efficiently without the trappings of church and religion.

While I agree with their argument on the policy merits, I think this overshoots the mark, too.  Government programs and their funding through taxation are involuntary once passed into law.  However, the democratic processes in our republic are intended to establish self-government, which derives from the consent of the governed.  In such a system, one cannot declare that they will not abide by laws with which they disagree, unless those laws become tyrannical or (in the Catholic case) impose an “intrinsic evil.” The passage of entitlement programs has been part of that process of self-government, as are the debates on their current funding and need for reform, and which forms reform should take.  There is nothing intrinsically immoral or amoral about systems of self-government creating legitimate safety net programs for the truly needy, even if tax dollars go to their funding, although the relative merits of such programs vis-a-vis crowding out private charity, the scope of the programs, and the best level of governance for tending such systems are also legitimate issues for debate among Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

There are many reasons to believe that the policies of the nanny state will deliver more misery than it relieves — Bishop Morlino refers to that in his column — but that is a measure of policy effectiveness, which as Bishop Morlino states does not directly relate to church doctrine.  The USCCB acknowledges a wide variety of fair-minded opinion on how best to deliver on Catholic social teachings through public policy, and exhorts only that public policy should be formed with the needs of the poor and infirm in mind to deliver the best possible solutions to their circumstances.  Just as liberals should not claim Ryan’s efforts to be outside of Catholic moral thought, we should be careful not to unfairly delegitimize others in the Catholic community who honestly see other solutions for social ills as more effective.

As I wrote before, the Catholic Church goes far beyond political agendas, and encompasses a wide diversity of thought.  Attempting to politically pigeonhole people on the basis of faith is usually a recipe for failure.  In my opinion, a system on track to put a third of the citizens and residents of the world’s richest nation on federal welfare programs outside of Social Security and Medicare (technically contribution programs) is a nation that is taking too much capital out of systems that would otherwise expand the sources of real prosperity and improved living standards, and is diluting the ability to assist the truly needy of our nation.  The need to reform such a system to return capital to those who can expand prosperity and raise living standards while making assistance to the needy more effective and efficient is well within the purpose, motives, and spirit of Catholic social teaching — but I’m not going to be arrogant enough to claim that my perspective is the only one that fits within those parameters.

Update: The reference to the near occasion of sinfulness in the way the website demands the “conversion” of Ryan comes straight from Scripture.  When Jesus said, “Judge not, lest ye be judged,” He meant that to arrogate to ourselves the authority to judge the status of another’s soul in relation to God was to infringe on God’s prerogative — and to operate far above one’s pay grade.  We can argue whether one’s policies fit within Catholic doctrine, especially when it comes to intrinsic evils such as abortion, but we have no more standing to judge the status of Nancy Pelosi’s soul than Paul Ryan’s.  As Jesus taught, we’re better off focusing on the status of our own souls and our relation to God.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Out:…..War on Women(with Akin,maybe not…sarc)

IN:……War on Ryans Religion!!

canopfor on August 19, 2012 at 7:46 PM

Ah, but if not for Ryan’s religion, he wouldn’t be conducting a war on women! Catholics are at the spearhead of it. Really–if Ryan weren’t ‘such a Catholic’, he’d surely be enlightened by now and join with liberals.

/snark

Liam on August 19, 2012 at 7:50 PM

The “social justice” wing of Catholicism has been riddled with activist clergy and religious more attuned to the tenets of socialism.

onlineanalyst on August 19, 2012 at 6:59 PM

Very true. At my daughter’s Catholic high school the principal was so happy when the school’s only nun retired. She remarked, “This school will be so much more Catholic without sister.”

And, it was. The Amnesty International Chapter (sister’s idea)was closed any the few complaining students were told to “Join the Right to Life Club.”

bw222 on August 19, 2012 at 7:51 PM

Why did Ed slide over the fact that the main organizational arm of U.S. Bishops condenmed Ryan’s budget?

libfreeordie on August 19, 2012 at 7:15 PM

…hey turdfreeorshat …why don’t you just write the blog…you’re never happy!…just ‘lift’ the material from the other sites that YOU want to cover……and then have Joe Bite me as a ‘guest lecturer’ for your kids discussing YOUR blog…the expert on plagiarism!…that’s your kind of boy! …STFU!

KOOLAID2 on August 19, 2012 at 7:52 PM

In contrast, his opponent’s new running mate was an early voice for reforms that might have helped America avoid it.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444318104577589462128032168.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

canopfor on August 19, 2012 at 7:41 PM

Thanks for providing the link, canopfor. I referred to this article in the “permanent campaign” thread. The comments at the link are good, too.

onlineanalyst on August 19, 2012 at 7:52 PM

canopfor on August 19, 2012 at 7:46 PM

Ah, but if not for Ryan’s religion, he wouldn’t be conducting a war on women! Catholics are at the spearhead of it. Really–if Ryan weren’t ‘such a Catholic’, he’d surely be enlightened by now and join with liberals.

/snark

Liam on August 19, 2012 at 7:50 PM

Liam:

Well,good point,the Dems are conducting “A Real War on Women,
and more specifically,on the UnBorn”!!:)

canopfor on August 19, 2012 at 7:53 PM

Nancy Pelosi’s soul

There’s the real news, last I saw it was pictured on a milk carton.

hillsoftx on August 19, 2012 at 7:57 PM

God loves a cheerful giver.

What, you didn’t immediately think of the IRS? ;-)

ConservativeLA on August 19, 2012 at 7:58 PM

canopfor on August 19, 2012 at 7:41 PM

Thanks for providing the link, canopfor. I referred to this article in the “permanent campaign” thread. The comments at the link are good, too.

onlineanalyst on August 19, 2012 at 7:52 PM

onlineanalyst:Excellent,this article needs to get around!!

I have it bookmarked for Facts Ammunition!
And,I sent it in last night to tips!:)

canopfor on August 19, 2012 at 7:58 PM

Well,good point,the Dems are conducting “A Real War on Women,
and more specifically,on the UnBorn”!!:)

canopfor on August 19, 2012 at 7:53 PM

Religion, for liberals, is a weapon no matter how it’s presented. Be ‘too’ religious, you’re an enemy. But when so-called religious folk lean left, the libs point out, “See! Real religious people are on our side!”

If Ryan were a liberation theologist, the Dems would be deprived of a weapon against him.

I hope he uses the Sword and Shield at his disposal to quench those flaming arrows, and may his enemies be ashamed.

Liam on August 19, 2012 at 7:59 PM

Why did Ed slide over the fact that the main organizational arm of U.S. Bishops condenmed Ryan’s budget?

libfreeordie on August 19, 2012 at 7:15 PM

You lie and you know it… but anything for the cause right? Read below and tell me how much the USCCB condemns Ryan OR his budget. Further, we’re only concerned with ROMNEY’S budget now, and lack of a Democrat
budget for over three years.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/314272/dolan-ryan-great-public-servant-kathryn-jean-lopez

theCork on August 19, 2012 at 7:59 PM

Well, I’m not going to go that far, because this group isn’t the Catholic Church. It’s a small group of the laity — in fact, it might be just one person…

We have a “bingo”! The Vatican in no way approves of this or sponsors it. If anything, I would think Romney’s more likely to have a Mormon problem than Ryan would have a Catholic problem. Frankly I’m a little surprised that Romney’s faith hasn’t been used against him by now…unless the Dems are saving that as a last resort a week or so before the election.

JetBoy on August 19, 2012 at 8:03 PM

Bishop Morlino seems to be a sincere and worthy bishop. Thank you, Excellency.

Mason on August 19, 2012 at 8:04 PM

I’d say he has a “Catholic” problem.

AbaddonsReign on August 19, 2012 at 8:05 PM

I wonder have these bishops stated how much federal government aid would be enough?

CW on August 19, 2012 at 8:06 PM

Some of the most fundamental issues for the formation of a Catholic conscience are as follows: sacredness of human life from conception to natural death, marriage, religious freedom and freedom of conscience, and a right to private property.

Well, there it is. Ryan seems to score highly on all of the above — his opponents over on that website — not so much.

Jesus lectured us repeatedly on the concept of the sacredness of human life, on the inviolability of marriage, and on the concept of free will (which implies a personal freedom to accept or reject God without fear that a believer will put one to death) as a key point in Salvation. If we read St. Augustine, we wonder how Augustine, who repeatedly rejected God in his youth, could ever arrive at a point where he accepted Him.

Of course, Jesus had the answer about both that and the right to private property in his encounter with the rich young man:

The young man said to him, “All of these I have observed. What do I still lack?” Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” When the young man heard this statement, he went away sad, for he had many possessions. Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Amen, I say to you, it will be hard for one who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for one who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and said, “Who then can be saved?” Jesus looked at them and said, “For human beings this is impossible, but for God all things are possible.”

Matt 19:20-26

Questions for the liberal:
a) Did Jesus say it was impossible for the rich to enter the kingdom of heaven?
b) Why would the disciples ask the question they asked?
c) Did Jesus advocate that anyone other than the young man himself determine the disposition of the young man’s wealth?

unclesmrgol on August 19, 2012 at 8:06 PM

From the same website, here is another quote:

Please pray for Vice President Joe Biden, also a devout Catholic, that he might have a change of heart. We urge him to follow the conscience that God gave him and use his influence to honor life and dignity of all people, both born and preborn.

unclesmrgol on August 19, 2012 at 8:12 PM

A Photo of Fauxchahontas, Literally, Begging For A Million Captions (and a Hot Air thread)…

http://predicthistunpredictpast.blogspot.com/2012/08/a-photo-of-fauxchahontas-literally.html

M2RB: Steppenwolf

Resist We Much on August 19, 2012 at 8:14 PM

With all due respect, if I ever need an atheist to explain the bible or what it means to me, I’ll give you a call.

SWalker on August 19, 2012 at 7:39 PM

Without any due respect, in my long sojourn on this planet, I have found that most agnostics and athiests I have met CAN explain the bible much better than the self-taught bible thumpers in the bible belt. They have generally studied the bible looking for answers, and not finding such to satidfy them have abandoned the bible. The rest of the evangelicals and bible thumpers have studied only to find replies to criticisms of their obvious hypocracies. Try living in Tulsa, sometime if you want to see thumpers, collecting vast sums of money condemning homosexuality, while keeping stables of boys in their homes, or abandoning their wives for oversexed doxies.

Old Country Boy on August 19, 2012 at 8:16 PM

canopfor on August 19, 2012 at 7:53 PM

If Ryan were a liberation theologist, the Dems would be deprived of a weapon against him.

I hope he uses the Sword and Shield at his disposal to quench those flaming arrows, and may his enemies be ashamed.

Liam on August 19, 2012 at 7:59 PM

Liam:

Oh ya,if Ryan was a ( liberation theologist),the Dems/MSM would
say hes likeable as well!:)

canopfor on August 19, 2012 at 8:16 PM

Just what the Catholic Church needs: another reason for its faithful to throw up their hands, and go to a non-denominational, Biblical Christian church.

VastRightWingConspirator on August 19, 2012 at 8:17 PM

I teach in a Catholic school, where most of the theology teachers were educated by Jesuits or in Jesuit schools/traditions. They are promoting a social justice alien to the one I was raised with in Catholic school that was definitely not Jesuit-influenced.

During the “Poverty” unit, one of the 5 solutions offered is government.

Yes, they are teaching our students that government is one solution to poverty. I was taught that we are supposed to build the kingdom of God on earth – US. Giving my money to a third party makes it easier to turn a blind eye, I would think.

When I ask these teachers if the result – eradication of poverty – is still “good” if government force must be used to achieve it, they change the subject or redirect to “but Republicans hate poor people.”

I never thought I would see the day when Jesuit-trained people can’t use or understand basic logic.

pascelle on August 19, 2012 at 8:19 PM

Try living in Tulsa, sometime if you want to see thumpers, collecting vast sums of money condemning homosexuality, while keeping stables of boys in their homes, or abandoning their wives for oversexed doxies.

Old Country Boy on August 19, 2012 at 8:16 PM

Get over your butt-hurt about your Mom or your Dad or how the preacher didn’t treat you well….

JFKY on August 19, 2012 at 8:24 PM

As a Catholic I can’t understand how any Catholic could vote for a Democrat in 2012.
It’s the Democtatic Party that has declared war on the Catholic Church & for that matter all Christians.

redridinghood on August 19, 2012 at 8:25 PM

Yes, they are teaching our students that government is one solution to poverty. I was taught that we are supposed to build the kingdom of God on earth – US. Giving my money to a third party makes it easier to turn a blind eye, I would think.

It IS a solution, just as euthanizing the poor is a solution….

JFKY on August 19, 2012 at 8:26 PM

pascelle on August 19, 2012 at 8:19 PM

Since the Conversion of Constantine the Church has always had a place for Government in this world…obviously we aren’t going to build the Kingdom of God in this life, Jesus tells us so, so it’s not just you mean and the Bishops, government has a role. The question is “How large a role?”

JFKY on August 19, 2012 at 8:29 PM

This website appears to bethe work of one man – Rhett Engelking and it appears he is backed by some nutty nuns. As a practicing Catholic, I would like to state that in 2012 most nuns are nutty.

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/rhett-engelking/44/3a8/a20

bw222 on August 19, 2012 at 8:29 PM

I never thought I would see the day when Jesuit-trained people can’t use or understand basic logic.

pascelle on August 19, 2012 at 8:19 PM

I am the graduate of a Jesuit university and heve done everything in my power to shield my children from the Jebbies. The Jesuits have been Marxists since the 1960s.

bw222 on August 19, 2012 at 8:33 PM

I am the graduate of a Jesuit university and heve done everything in my power to shield my children from the Jebbies. The Jesuits have been Marxists since the 1960s.

bw222 on August 19, 2012 at 8:33 PM

I’ve heard charges worse than mere socialist fantasies…something about an initiation ceremony that would give most people here nightmares, veterans included.

MelonCollie on August 19, 2012 at 8:35 PM

Ryan? No – but 0bama might. (apologies to any who expressed this before – between kids’ soccer and a home improvement effort, I’m too lazy to read ‘em all)…

affenhauer on August 19, 2012 at 8:36 PM

They can call themselves Catholic… So can a number of bishops and priests… maybe even this Pope, who is nothing compared to his predecessor… But they aren’t. Not if they believe in government stealing from your neighbor to support your brother.

YOU are your brother’s keeper.
NOT your neighbor.

wildcat72 on August 19, 2012 at 6:50 PM

There you go again. You didn’t read Ed’s homily. He said that Jesus said ” Judge not, lest ye be judged’. But it went right over your head. Now sit down and be good.

timberline on August 19, 2012 at 8:36 PM

I’ve heard charges worse than mere socialist fantasies…something about an initiation ceremony that would give most people here nightmares, veterans included.

And they pale as compared to what I’ve heard about the Joooos!

JFKY on August 19, 2012 at 8:37 PM

It IS a solution, just as euthanizing the poor is a solution….
JFKY on August 19, 2012 at 8:26 PM

Maybe the Dead Kennedys were onto something after all…

affenhauer on August 19, 2012 at 8:38 PM

JFKY on August 19, 2012 at 8:29 PM

Well, the conversion of Constantine allowed the Church to become the power behind the throne, as I recall. And it is certainly true that the Church used government as a tool to do what they wanted.

I suppose my issue is that knowing that we are not going to necessarily build the kingdom in this life, we are supposed to keep trying, I guess in the hope that our actions will inspire others to follow suit and we’ll get that much closer.
But when the Church says to go ahead and turn all of this over to the government, where they (the church) clearly lack influence (cough…HHS), I have to wonder how bright these people are.

pascelle on August 19, 2012 at 8:39 PM

Get over your butt-hurt about your Mom or your Dad or how the preacher didn’t treat you well….

JFKY on August 19, 2012 at 8:24 PM

OCB is a perfect example of why we have little patience for atheists. For all their self-proclaimed ‘knowledge’, they’re usually little more than whiny simpletons. Some are reacting to a very overzealous religious upbringing (parents be warned), but a lot are just complainers who’ve found buddies and a soapbox.

MelonCollie on August 19, 2012 at 8:39 PM

And they pale as compared to what I’ve heard about the Joooos!

JFKY on August 19, 2012 at 8:37 PM

Your words, bucko.

MelonCollie on August 19, 2012 at 8:40 PM

But when the Church says to go ahead and turn all of this over to the government, where they (the church) clearly lack influence (cough…HHS), I have to wonder how bright these people are.

pascelle on August 19, 2012 at 8:39 PM

And I agree, entirely…The Church doesn’t want the RESPONSIBILITY for the Poor (IMO) either in terms of the Fiscal Burden or in the Moral Burden, I mean what if “we” fail-which we will, because Jesus tells us we will?

So instead the Church is trying to pass the buck to the government, it has more money and if it doesn’t turn out well, it’s not the Bishop’s fault. But the Bishops haven’t quite figured out that the government ISN’T CATHOLIC, so having made it powerful it turns on them too.

As you say it makes me question how bright they are….

JFKY on August 19, 2012 at 8:44 PM

Your words, bucko.

MelonCollie on August 19, 2012 at 8:40 PM

Any time we start talking about “secret initiations” my antennae quiver…and figure we are about to wander over into Prison Planet Land and a discussion of the human sacrifices at the Bohemian Grove rituals.

JFKY on August 19, 2012 at 8:46 PM

When I ask these teachers if the result – eradication of poverty – is still “good” if government force must be used to achieve it, they change the subject or redirect to “but Republicans hate poor people.”

pascelle on August 19, 2012 at 8:19 PM

Maybe you should have reminded the Jesuits what Jesus said about the poor.

Matt 26:11
For the poor you have always with you, but me you have not always.

But then they probably would have flunked you.

timberline on August 19, 2012 at 8:47 PM

Any time we start talking about “secret initiations” my antennae quiver…and figure we are about to wander over into Prison Planet Land and a discussion of the human sacrifices at the Bohemian Grove rituals.

JFKY on August 19, 2012 at 8:46 PM

After reading your retort to pascelle @ at 8:44 PM, I am convinced you space escaped from Prison Planet Land just to come over here and annoy the adults.

timberline on August 19, 2012 at 8:53 PM

After reading your retort to pascelle @ at 8:44 PM, I am convinced you space escaped from Prison Planet Land just to come over here and annoy the adults.

timberline on August 19, 2012 at 8:53 PM

I’ll say. Too bad they don’t have a tipline to report escaped lunatics.

MelonCollie on August 19, 2012 at 8:55 PM

timberline on August 19, 2012 at 8:53 PM

Please fell free to elaborate….

JFKY on August 19, 2012 at 8:56 PM

This is stupid.

Nothing more, nothing less.

RedNewEnglander on August 19, 2012 at 8:56 PM

bw222 on August 19, 2012 at 8:33 PM

Back in the day, among higher up Soviets, they would refer to “true believers” in Marxism/Leninism as “Yezhuiti” or”Chernozhopa.” The former is “Jesuits,” the latter is more derogatory, “Black Asses,” referring to the black robes the old Jesuit missionaries wore. Since their inception, the Jesuits have been more into political power than in actually promulgating the Word and Mercy of Jesus. As an old colonial era expression goes “Where the Black Robes go, death follows.” In Latin America, they did a lot more harm than good throughout the 1970′s and 80′s.

Even KGB and GRU officers abroad would point out certain members of the embassy staff or country mission with a warning, “There goes another “Chernozhopa.” Meaning, no use wasting one’s time with them, the fools actually believe that whole Marxism thing.

coldwarrior on August 19, 2012 at 8:57 PM

Well, here we go again. [sigh] As soon as I heard about this, I figured it was another group of Catholics-in-name-only for all intents and purposes who shield themselves within the Church and present themselves as a part of it, while promoting a very different agenda.

I really wish there was an imprimatur for these kinds of groups as there is for books published for Catholics by Catholics. But since there isn’t, it’s “buyer” beware. It’s long past time that the bishops and other prominent Catholics who follow the Magisterium call these poseurs out on their distortions.

PatriotGal2257 on August 19, 2012 at 8:57 PM

Without any due respect, in my long sojourn on this planet, I have found that most agnostics and athiests I have met CAN explain the bible much better than the self-taught bible thumpers in the bible belt. They have generally studied the bible looking for answers, and not finding such to satidfy them have abandoned the bible. The rest of the evangelicals and bible thumpers have studied only to find replies to criticisms of their obvious hypocracies. Try living in Tulsa, sometime if you want to see thumpers, collecting vast sums of money condemning homosexuality, while keeping stables of boys in their homes, or abandoning their wives for oversexed doxies.

Old Country Boy on August 19, 2012 at 8:16 PM

Wow… Have you tried Tucks medicated pads? Butthurt like that really should be treated. You shouldn’t have to go through life carrying that much butthurt around.

SWalker on August 19, 2012 at 9:15 PM

bw222 on August 19, 2012 at 8:33 PM

coldwarrior on August 19, 2012 at 8:57 PM

bw222…Interesting stuff. Most of the Jesuit grads I know are true believers. Congratulations on your deprogramming! (kidding, not ugly!)

coldwarrior…now that is an interesting factoid. I had no idea the Jesuits had such a bad reputation historically. I was taught that they were all scholarly and such, so…yeah…go Jesuits. Only having worked with their intellectual progeny have I reevaluated that. This information gives me an entirely new perspective (and line of attack? /s). Thank you.

pascelle on August 19, 2012 at 9:19 PM

Well, I’m not going to go that far, because this group isn’t the Catholic Church.  It’s a small group of the laity — in fact, it might be just one person with an amateurish website, one that offers no explanation of whether the owner of the site is even Catholic at all.

Then why waste a thread on it?

kg598301 on August 19, 2012 at 9:23 PM

With all due respect, if I ever need an atheist to explain the bible or what it means to me, I’ll give you a call.

SWalker on August 19, 2012 at 7:39 PM

.
Without any due respect, in my long sojourn on this planet, I have found that most agnostics and athiests I have met CAN explain the bible much better than the self-taught bible thumpers in the bible belt. They have generally studied the bible looking for answers, and not finding such to satidfy them have abandoned the bible. The rest of the evangelicals and bible thumpers have studied only to find replies to criticisms of their obvious hypocracies. Try living in Tulsa, sometime if you want to see thumpers, collecting vast sums of money condemning homosexuality, while keeping stables of boys in their homes, or abandoning their wives for oversexed doxies.

Old Country Boy on August 19, 2012 at 8:16 PM

.
Translation:
.

CHRISTIANS ARE NOTHING MORE THAN A BUNCH OF DISINGENUOUS HYPOCRITES OF THE HIGHEST ORDER, AND THE WORLD WOULD BE A BETTER PLACE WITHOUT THEM

.
Am I “in the ballpark” there, Old Country’ ?

listens2glenn on August 19, 2012 at 9:24 PM

There you go again. You didn’t read Ed’s homily. He said that Jesus said ” Judge not, lest ye be judged’. But it went right over your head. Now sit down and be good.

timberline on August 19, 2012 at 8:36 PM

With all due respect, Ed, as a Lay Catholic is no more or less qualified to opine as a Lay Catholic as I am.

wildcat72 on August 19, 2012 at 9:25 PM

Then why waste a thread on it?

kg598301 on August 19, 2012 at 9:23 PM

.
Slow news day ?

listens2glenn on August 19, 2012 at 9:27 PM

I’ve prayed that Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, and Barrack see the value in human life. Of course, God works on his time, not mine.

Now, I’ve got Mitt – who will give life a better shake than the above three and picked Ryan, who I know maybe able to save a few thousand souls, literately.

This Catholic is voting for Romney/Ryan 2012.

Conger on August 19, 2012 at 9:30 PM

There is nothing intrinsically immoral or amoral about systems of self-government creating legitimate safety net programs for the truly needy, even if tax dollars go to their funding, although the relative merits of such programs vis-a-vis crowding out private charity, the scope of the programs, and the best level of governance for tending such systems are also legitimate issues for debate among Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

Uh, yeah there is. You’re taking someones money (representing their labor) not to use, voluntarily, to further a common interest, but rather to give to someone who has not earned that money. In other words, US citizens agree to volunteer part of their labor in order to pool resources with every other citizen and pay for a common interest — a military, a court system, a system designed to protect THEIR freedom & natural rights from others.

When government crosses the line into taking from one person to give directly to another, it’s redistribution… it’s theft. I shouldn’t have to work half of the year for free so that someone else can spend that whole year sitting on the couch watching Judge Judy.

I mean, I’m sorry… that’s it. If I feel bad for someone, and want to do good and help them in my personal life, yeah I might offer them some money. Or some advice. Or help them get a job. Or realize they’re lazy and uneducated and have a bad attitude and give them nothing.

MY CHOICE, not yours, Ed Morrissey, or anyone else’s.

Timin203 on August 19, 2012 at 9:30 PM

I seem to have gone OT with Jesuits, but I think the split you see in Catholic voters has a lot to do with a split in the different divisions of Catholic thinking, to get back on track. Not all Catholic schools are the same, not all Catholic parishes are the same: the major variable seems to be the order in which the priest/bishop/lay teacher was trained.

Add to that mix the general culture of higher education which tilts left (at least that was my experience), the culture of the Catholics you are talking about (Italian, Polish, Irish, Latin American, etc.) and you have a recipe for all sort of subsets of Catholicism.

Which is why, when the question is posed, Does Ryan Have a Catholic Problem?, the answer is “to some but not all Catholics.”

pascelle on August 19, 2012 at 9:39 PM

For all you good Christians who are judging me, Tulsa is the incubator of O. Roberts of the handkerchief on the chest for $50 and I will cure you fame. It produced Billy James Hargis who kept a stable of boys in his church, Tipton who took requests for prayer, accompanied by dollar donations, then had his people trash the prayer requests (in the dumpster out back, and cashed the checks. Rhema bible college that used to send it’s students out to accost people on the street to save them. A Baptist minister who led a hell-fire and brimstone invocatioon for a half hour at our local PTA; My local priest who was suspended for little boy problems. We have a church on every section line corner. Tulsa has more churches per capita than any city in the USA. The problem with the “Tulsa type” Christians is they spend all their time trying to prosletise each other and their next door neighbor. Their “mission” trips are really tax free vacations to central american resorts.

I am not an athiest as you suppose – I just don’t like “organized” or even disorganized” religion. I follow the teachings of 3rd Hezikiah, 5-7.

Old Country Boy on August 19, 2012 at 9:55 PM

Two thoughts on taxation and the Bible–

1. The phrase “tax collectors” is usually used along with the word “sinners” or with words describing specific groups of sinners (“robbers, evildoers, and adulterers,” for example–from when the guy convinced of his righteousness thanked God that he was not as bad as the tax collector praying nearby). People were shocked that Jesus would eat with such awful people. In other words, taxation was closely associated with corruption–the tax collectors were getting rich by ripping off others (example, Zacchaeus–the “wee little man” of sycamore-tree-climbing fame). Now, the point of lots of the references was that Jesus loved even the tax collectors. But I think it’s a little bit funny that some churches are now siding with the tax collectors of today, assuming the rampant corruption of the past is nonexistent and that those collecting and using our taxes are somehow more noble and trustworthy than tax collectors were all those centuries ago–and will use their positions of power to give the collected funds to the poor rather than, say, funding newer and larger unnecessary bureaucratic nightmares or giving themselves a very comfortable retirement package.

2. According to this verse, taxes were for paying the salaries of public servants:

“…it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.” –Romans 13:5-7

No mention of giving to the government to help the poor. That was always the responsibility of the church (well, when the poor had no family to help them, that is–family was expected to take care of family).

End of thoughts on taxation and the Bible.

I find this quotation to be absolutely brilliant in summarizing the wrongheadedness in “social justice” efforts to demonize capitalism and promote wealth redistribution:

“Voluntary exchange of goods and services ensures that distribution occurs in terms of reciprocity: no one gets more than he gives. This equilibrium of giving and receiving is the epitome of economic justice; any other system imposes forced labor.” –Ruben Alvarado, A Common Law (emphasis mine)

And the phrase “social justice” is like fingernails on a chalkboard to me. Providing for the poor, rescuing the oppressed from their oppressors, seeing that the sick are taken care of–these are acts of mercy, not justice.

butterflies and puppies on August 19, 2012 at 9:57 PM

some catholics have a socialism, social justice problem of long standing. paul ryan isn’t running for pope or bishop but vice president in a secular government. that he appears to be an honest and good man is what is important- not that he agrees with destroying this country economically upon false pretenses and distortions of both the bible and the situation at hand.

but this the problem with the left- their compromised , skewered view of justice, personal responsibility, and the role of government to interfere with the liberties of others-including many who are not roman catholic nor even christian.

nowhere does jesus advocate stealing from your neighbors using the power of the government to provide EBT cards to able bodied adults who want to go to the strip bar, drink malt liquor and be paid back for crimes of past generations. forcing supposed “charity” from the unwilling is neither charity nor christian. charity is given of free will by the individual. once it is forced that’s called stealing which IS a violation of the 10 commandments.

catholics are free to give to the charities of their choice-including those for the elderly and poor. i mean that’s why there are so many catholic hospitals, hospices and elderly facilities in this country – a wonderful example of both service to the sick and poor but use of the free market. catholics and christians are not free to dictate to government how to exact ‘charity’ out of the rest of the citizens to comply with their personal beliefs.

mittens on August 19, 2012 at 10:14 PM

This bunch is another horde of social justice Catholics, the b*stard child of liberation theology, the kind that are rampant through the American Southwest now. The Archbishop of LA is one of them too, as is the current Archbishop of San Antonio. Unfortunately the Roman Catholic Church has forgotten so many of the teachings of Jesus Christ that they go through the motions on Sundays and tell us we are bad for reaping the rewards of our labors. Nevermind if we give to the Church or to charity. Christ never meant that. By the “rich” he meant those who hoard their wealth. Those who do not help the poor or downtrodden are “the rich,” regardless of their income level. Christ did not preach that you should allow the government to be mommy and daddy to the poor, he preached that we should serve the poor. He also said that we will always have the poor; we can only try to improve their lot.

john1schn on August 19, 2012 at 10:22 PM

I am not an athiest as you suppose – I just don’t like “organized” or even disorganized” religion. I follow the teachings of 3rd Hezikiah, 5-7.

Old Country Boy on August 19, 2012 at 9:55 PM

Save the BS for people stupid enough to swallow it. You won’t find any of them here.

SWalker on August 19, 2012 at 10:39 PM

For all you good Christians who are judging me,

You do, of course, realize how utterly opaque you sound?

I, nor most here….don’t care about your lack of…..whatever you proclaim to lack.

People like you simply do not matter.

Is that a problem?

98ZJUSMC on August 19, 2012 at 10:53 PM

Rhett Enkelking writes on the blog. He’s part of the “Franciscan Action Network.” Unsure how long it’s been around. Looks like he’s been on his present job 11 months, and the Franciscan Action network seems to be a standard leftie group with a cassock as disguise.

Sekhmet on August 19, 2012 at 10:56 PM

Rule Of Threads, we bow to you.

ConservativeLA on August 19, 2012 at 11:05 PM

The critic’s of Ryan’s positions have largely built their cases on the foundation of the statement of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops…which is a foundation of sand. The USCCB, despite what the media and too many Catholics think, cannot speak with any authority in any but the narrowest of situations.

Pope John Paul II said in his Apostolic Letter Apostolos Suos, issued motu proprio:

In order that the doctrinal declarations of the Conference of Bishops referred to in No. 22 of the present Letter may constitute authentic magisterium and be published in the name of the Conference itself, they must be unanimously approved by the Bishops who are members, or receive the recognitio of the Apostolic See if approved in plenary assembly by at least two thirds of the Bishops belonging to the Conference and having a deliberative vote.
and
No body of the Episcopal Conference, outside of the plenary assembly, has the power to carry out acts of authentic magisterium. The Episcopal Conference cannot grant such power to its Commissions or other bodies set up by it.”

A subcommittee or spokesperson of the USCCB can issue whatever statement they want but it carries no authority…that goes double for any statement or policy issued by the bureaucrats.

ironmarshal on August 19, 2012 at 11:21 PM

Without any due respect, in my long sojourn on this planet, I have found that most agnostics and athiests I have met CAN explain the bible much better than the self-taught bible thumpers in the bible belt.

How would you know? And Bible is capitalized, genius.

They have generally studied the bible looking for answers, and not finding such to satidfy them have abandoned the bible.

Ok! What did they want answers to, this group of atheists and agnostics who couldn’t find answers in the Bible? If they were looking for the Meaning of Life, and it didn’t involve approval of unlimited fornication, it’s no surprise that they ditched the Bible.

So tell us, how many atheists and agnostics did yo interview before you realized that they were all better exegetes than your average Christian, and that their search for truth was not satisfied biblically? 10? 100? 1,000?

The rest of the evangelicals and bible thumpers have studied only to find replies to criticisms of their obvious hypocracies.

So, how many interviews with evangelicals did you conduct before reaching that conclusion about “the rest of evangelicals”? Did you stop when you got to 51%

Try living in Tulsa, sometime

No thanks. It’s been done, and I’ve heard of the results.

if you want to see thumpers, collecting vast sums of money condemning homosexuality, while keeping stables of boys in their homes, or abandoning their wives for oversexed doxies. Old Country Boy on August 19, 2012 at 8:16 PM

Huh. Can you name a few? Stables? How much money was involved, really? If there’s no God, what problem do you have with leaving one’s wife?

Akzed on August 19, 2012 at 11:26 PM

He does now.

Akin must go. This Tuesday is the deadline to replace him. Out, out, out. He should be pressured to resign or this will not have a good ending.

McCaskill mus go!

Schadenfreude on August 19, 2012 at 11:46 PM

Catholics aren’t the only denomination pushing the social gospel, a LOT of Protestant churches are doing it as well; they seem to be becoming more liberal as bible teaching goes out the window and it’s now more about “feeling good about yourself”.

kg598301 on August 20, 2012 at 12:02 AM

The difference in the votes between Romney and Obama will be vastly larger than the number of people who care about Ryan’s Catholicism. Let’s talk about a real issue.

thuja on August 20, 2012 at 12:12 AM

…or, God is a big genie who is about to grant all of your wishes…

kg598301 on August 20, 2012 at 12:14 AM

I am not an athiest as you suppose – I just don’t like “organized” or even disorganized” religion. I follow the teachings of 3rd Hezikiah, 5-7.

Old Country Boy on August 19, 2012 at 9:55 PM

.
Can you say “Jesus Is Lord”?

listens2glenn on August 20, 2012 at 12:14 AM

For all you good Christians who are judging me, . . . . . . . .

Old Country Boy on August 19, 2012 at 9:55 PM

.
I can’t help it. God has entrusted to me the “Ministry Of Judgement”.

It’s a GREAT gig ! : )

All I have to do is go around pointing my finger at people, and judging them.
Nothing else on earth gives me that smug feeling of superiority, like this “Ministry Of Judgement” God has given me.

Yep, wouldn’t trade it for anything.

WHAT ? ! . . . Why’s everyone looking at me like that?

listens2glenn on August 20, 2012 at 12:25 AM

Proclaiming their commitment “to our faith and our country,” the 21 signers devoted much of their letter to jobs and the economy, along with a variety of foreign policy items which have been seldom-mentioned in the presidential campaign

Twenty one people? Twenty one? That’s pretty weak.

As a bad Catholic, I can guarantee that I could go to mass and find 21 people that would support the calls for conversion of Congressman Ryan’s budgetary thinking, but I could also find 21 people that would support his budget proposals in full voice. I could also find 21 people that called for government supported grocery stores. You can find what you want in any subset of a large group.

It is striking to me that these 21 people would fixate on the rather subjective social justice teachings of the church, and instead completely ignore an actual law of the church (no abortions).

juanito on August 20, 2012 at 12:34 AM

Catholics aren’t the only denomination pushing the social gospel, a LOT of Protestant churches are doing it as well; they seem to be becoming more liberal as bible teaching goes out the window and it’s now more about “feeling good about yourself”.

kg598301 on August 20, 2012 at 12:02 AM

One of the goals of communism a long time ago, was to infiltrate the churches and change their mission from one of salvation of souls to one of worldly social justice (under a communist Caesar of course)

One can look at this two ways:
1.This is how communism does what it does best.
2: This is merely man being driven by the powers and principalities to cause souls to be lost.

I prefer a third, that communists are tools of Satan. They always hate God and his faithful flock (but they love the heretics and they love the un-faithful (useful idiots?)

Hence, they must attack and destroy any semblense of good directly (as Obama did by attacking conscience) and by labeling their brand of evil a good. Hence: abortion is a woman’s choice, it’s for the children, and , it’s just sex,etc., which then confuse as they become diabolical distortions of truth and love(i.e.God)

Don L on August 20, 2012 at 5:13 AM

It is not for the bishop or priests to endorse particular candidates or political parties. Any efforts on the part of any bishop or priest to do so should be set aside

So it isn’t the job of a bishop in Nazi Germany to have warned of the evils of the Nazis, the holocaust, or the war machine against others freedom? (Well that thinking eliminates one liberal lie)

And it isn’t the bishops’ job to warn their flock against a party that openly supports human destruction of abortion euthanasia, gay marriage and just about any form of deviant sex(not to mention earth worship, and not producing children for eco-madness)?

And they shouldn’t warn them about a party that directly seeks the demise of God’s Church by attacking it with transparent loss of conscience and ability to do your mission of charity?

Are you certain that there’s no connection between saving souls and warning souls about that kind of evil?

Don L on August 20, 2012 at 5:23 AM

However, the democratic processes in our republic are intended to establish self-government, which derives from the consent of the governed. In such a system, one cannot declare that they will not abide by laws with which they disagree, unless those laws become tyrannical or (in the Catholic case) impose an “intrinsic evil.” The passage of entitlement programs has been part of that process of self-government, as are the debates on their current funding and need for reform, and which forms reform should take.

That idea without a bit in its mouth would simplify into the pure tyranny of the majority.

Surely there is something you cannot rightfully take from me, even if you and everyone else decide to legally take it. If that’s not the case, I’m not, never was, and never will be free.

Axe on August 20, 2012 at 6:54 AM

Ryan may have a problem with the same liberal Catholics Republicans normally have – the Father Plagers of the faith. Somehow this is new?

Liberals are like Chinese menu catholics – they think they can pick & choose which Church positions they will support. Liberals never waant the Church teachings regarding abortion, homosexuality, moral behavior meddling in the political square but somehow they’re going to worry about Ryan’s soul over his budget? /s

If the pro-abortion politicians don’t have a Cathilic problem it’s hard to see why Ryan would be in trouble for his budget since abortion is still considered one of the big no-nos.

katiejane on August 20, 2012 at 7:37 AM

Ryan has no problem with this Catholic. If I have to chose a VP who is running as a fitting representative of my faith, Ryan will cross the finish line before Biden figures out which shoe goes on which foot.
I suspect most of those “Catholics” who have a problem with Ryan are voting for Obama anyway. They are fantasizing that they have some level of influence on others. They are wrong.

SKYFOX on August 20, 2012 at 7:38 AM

‘ love the smell of incense in the morning!’ The church that is accused by the left of being anti-women, is attended and cared for by women. Go to any mass, any religious ceremony and who do you see? Women and a splattering of men here and there.

Fuquay Steve on August 20, 2012 at 7:46 AM

Go to any mass, any religious ceremony and who do you see? Women and a splattering of men here and there.

Fuquay Steve on August 20, 2012 at 7:46 AM

So true. I go to mass because my wife wants me with her. If she weren’t around, I’d be fishing…unshaved…and in dirty clothes.

swinia sutki on August 20, 2012 at 8:23 AM

Does Obama have a Presidency problem? Kinda beats them all, doesn’t it.

JellyToast on August 20, 2012 at 8:36 AM

I am a little confused vis a vis church teachings. Mr. Obama has;

- Attacked religious freedom using PPACA, an act by the way the church supported. Even knowing the financial predictions were, well, dishonest and questionable. I know the church is pretty adept at accounting. Yet irrespective, they supported PPACA anyway. Which says what about their opinion on our governments financial matters? Oh, yes, and one has to appreciate the irony of the fight they are now in. Meddling in government policy with liberal social opinions, having very little basis in financial realities, now has them in an existential fight with the government.

- I suppose all those rallies and homilies regarding the unborn can be said to be somewhat specious? Or at least simply not paramount in the church’s ordered priorities? You know, since the church sold them out to support the President’s PPACA efforts.

- I am a little confused how bankrupting the nation, potentially threatening our existence or ending the social programs in question achieves some type of Catholic goal. But that’s just me.

As you mentioned, I too would be suspect of such “groups” claiming to be Catholic and representing a larger Catholic audience. Being Catholic means you follow church doctrine. It’s not a Chinese menu where one picks and chooses. If you don’t believe that doctrines or engage wholly and fully in its teachings, you are simply not Catholic.

Marcus Traianus on August 20, 2012 at 8:36 AM

Sadly, those who grew up, or were indoctrinated in the post-Vatican II era, have little to nothing with which to compare their “faith”.
A tabula rasa approach to Catholicism emerged in the Novo Ordo Church – you know, the downright bastardization of THE original Christian Church.

QUOTE: “…but that’s not the same as arguing that Ryan damages Romney’s Catholic draw by being on the ticket.”

Sorry, but NO Traditional Roman Catholic would vote for a blasphemous cult member. (that would be Mittens, btw)

QUOTE: ” … the principle of subsidiarity. That means the problem at hand should be addressed at the lowest level possible — that is, the level closest to the people in need. That again, is simply the law of human reason.”

EXCEPT that the Papacy of JP2 threw reason to the wind and embraced every pagan cult on the planet in order to pump up their numbers. Oh, and never forget the New Order Liberation Theology that literally hides illegal aliens, oft´times via The Newman Center(s) who provide “asylum”.

“intrinsic evil”

From my perspective, there are varying degrees of “intrinsic evil”. Trust me, I have met with, housed, and supervised truly evil people.
The other “intrinsic evil” is supporting a heretical cult member.

Addendum: Via ConservativeLA on Twitter, Antony Davies and Kristina Antolin take up the opposite argument — that government programs represent involuntary coercion and therefore cannot be acceptable to Catholics: Coerced acts, no matter how beneficial or well-intentioned, cannot be moral.

Ever since Vatican II Roman Catholics have lost their moral compass.
You “New Order” and / or convenient Catholics can thank Pope Paul VI for the mess of a Mass.
Lingua Latinae Mortua non est

If I want to “meet my neighbor”, I’ll walk down the road and introduce myself.
If I want to hear Jazz music, I’ll go to a Jazz club NOT Church.
And on and on it goes.
When y’all speak of the Roman Catholic Church, you really should do some research if you aren’t old enough to remember how exhilarating was the experience back when the Church actually stood for something.

By The Way …
It was Catholic Social Services who fulfilled the Green Berets’ (i.e. the American Government, read: US) promise to the Hmong and Montagnards to re-locate to America, after all of the brutal, nee, downright vicious fighting they endured for freedom. The Green Berets leading those forces were mortified upon returning home when they found out that WE (the gubmint) had abandoned our most crucial allies in the Highlands.
There is much more to this argument, but I tend to eschew verbosity.
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on August 20, 2012 at 8:52 AM

Roman Catholicism has been forever a Socialistic, Marxist religious organization for over 1,400 years. This is why Roman Catholics vote for democrats. They believe in social liberal ideas which are 100 percent contradictory to what our Lord and Saviour taught. The incorrect interpretation of Matthew 5-7 has been always used by liberals and socialist which have nothing at all to do with the Church Age, it has everything to do with the Millennium reign of our Lord in the 1,000 years our Lord reigns after He returns to set up His Kingdom. The Lord never taught for His Church to promote a socialistic Marxist world, and for those who don’t want to work for a living than they will suffer. Laziness: Proverbs 10:4-5: 26, 12:24, 27;13:4; 15:19; 18:9; 20:4; 21:25-26; 22:13; 24:30-34;
Not being lazy Proverbs 20:13 ;romans 12:10-11; Hebrews 6:11-12
What Laziness Does: Proverbs 19:15; 23:20-21; Eccesiates 10:18
And if you don’t work you don’t eat: “2 Thessalonians 3:10 “ for even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. “
That’s not my words they are the words from God the Holy Spirit….

Shain1611 on August 20, 2012 at 9:01 AM

The Lord never taught for His Church to promote a socialistic Marxist world, and for those who don’t want to work for a living than they will suffer.
What Laziness Does: Proverbs, Eccesiates
And if you don’t work you don’t eat: “2 Thessalonians 3:10 “ for even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. “
That’s not my words they are the words from God the Holy Spirit….

Shain1611 on August 20, 2012 at 9:01 AM

Well Stated.
I disagree that the Holy Roman Catholic Church has always been “Socialistic”.
Again, let history be your guide.
Confuse it not however, with the LDS, who ONLY provide “charity” to other Mormons.
(“Jewish Family Services” is much the same way, btw)
Now, tell me, someone, anyone, that the two are compatible.
We rational people who lived in LDS country for decades know what they’re all about.
For those too young to remember, prior to Vatican II, it was immoral to attend a non-Catholic Church. MOST of us abided by that dictum.
If you have to attend a wedding in a Prod, er Protestant church, be sure to go to Confession, er, the PC “Reconciliation” afterward. And for those who want to visit and / or attend a Mormon “Temple” for a marriage, Baptism, whatever, you are NOT welcome. PERIOD. Classy folks, eh?
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on August 20, 2012 at 9:35 AM

I am not an athiest as you suppose – I just don’t like “organized” or even disorganized” religion. I follow the teachings of 3rd Hezikiah, 5-7.

Old Country Boy on August 19, 2012 at 9:55 PM

For those of you who (like me) knew this wasn’t a Biblical book, but also never heard of an extra-Biblical book by this name, let me save you the trouble of wondering about it.

It is a joke “book” used to catch all made up phrased or to collect sayings that some people think are from the Bible.

Elisa on August 20, 2012 at 9:47 AM

I am not an athiest as you suppose – I just don’t like “organized” or even disorganized” religion. I follow the teachings of 3rd Hezikiah, 5-7.

Old Country Boy on August 19, 2012 at 9:55 PM

The Church has always been “disorganized” from the beginning. Look at how they were scattered when Our Lord was being crucified. Read the New Testament and look at all the false teachings and sinful ways that St. Paul and St. Peter and the bishops they selected had to correct in the early Church. (and since) Look at how the good man who Jesus picked to be the Church’s first leader in His physical absence even denied Christ.

Because Christ Church and the men He selected to spread His Gospel, were human men. With all their sins and flaws.

The important things to remember 2.

St. Peter “wept bitterly” when he repented of denying Our Lord. God forgives all of us.

Secondly, the fact that the Church has always been filled with sinful and flawed men and disorganization shows that it is under the protection and led by the Holy Spirit.

Like Chesterton said,

When Christ at a symbolic moment was establishing His great society, He chose for its corner-stone neither the brilliant Paul nor the mystic John, but a shuffler, a snob, a coward – in a word, a man. Peter. And upon this rock He has built His Church, and the gates of Hell have not prevailed against it. All the empires and the kingdoms have failed, because of this inherent and continual weakness, that they were founded by strong men and upon strong men. But this one thing, the historic Christian Church, was founded on a weak man, and for that reason it is indestructible. For no chain is stronger than its weakest link.

Because if it was up to men alone, the Church would have fallen apart 2,000 years ago. Instead, you can’t find in history any other government or principality that has survived so long, especially preaching the same message. And no other religion has tranformed and civilized humanity like Christianity has.

Elisa on August 20, 2012 at 9:57 AM

‘ love the smell of incense in the morning!’ The church that is accused by the left of being anti-women, is attended and cared for by women. Go to any mass, any religious ceremony and who do you see? Women and a splattering of men here and there.

Fuquay Steve on August 20, 2012 at 7:46 AM

That is true. Even as an infant the Body of Christ was attended to and cared for by a woman. lol The Church in the United States is still under her protection. May she pray for us this year especially.

Seriously, the think that many men get more religious as they age and have more time to be more reflective and ponder life and mortality. Not as consumed with providing for their families. There are a good number of older men at daily Masses. There are definitely more women visible in the Church’s day to day life, (you are right) but not by that large a percentage. Especially since many of those women are older and widowed. And women are more nurturing and natural caretakers.

And like the next poster noted, women do civilize men, don’t we. lol Seriously, that has been the role of women in all historical societies. We have begun to drop the ball in modern day America and allowed grown men in their 20′s to behave as children and not mature. Because our young women haven’t been taught by society that they are to expect to be treated in a special way and to expect certain things and commitments from men before acting like wives. May God help us.

Elisa on August 20, 2012 at 10:12 AM

an evil which cannot be justified by any circumstances whatsoever. These evils are examples of direct pollution of the ecology of human nature and can be discerned as such by human reason alone. Thus, all people of good will who wish to follow human reason should deplore any and all violations in the above areas, without exception. The violations would be: abortion, euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, same-sex marriage, government-coerced secularism, and socialism.

Some super-pac has to make an add out of this.

Iblis on August 20, 2012 at 11:13 AM

“ad” not “add”

Iblis on August 20, 2012 at 11:14 AM

When you see “THINK PROGRESS” agreeing with these progressive radicals about Paul Ryan you know he DOESN’T have a catholic problem. The only “catholic” problem Paul Ryan has is with the radical feminist, radical progressive, global warming freaks and social justice cabal within the catholic church.

Who funds “THINK PROGRESS” Could it be Soros? The FAN–the Franciscan Action Network is a bunch of lefties.
Here are a few samples of what Franciscan Action Network is worried about:
“Amazon Day”
“FAN Director of Advocacy Sr. Marie Lucey Interviewed on Al Jazeera on Faithful Budget” (!!!)
“FAN and Franciscan Responses to the Vatican Report on the LCWR” (this is all you need to know; they have been fighting John Paul II and Benedict XVI for DECADES)
“FAN Observes Earth Week”
“Franciscans Welcome Carbon Pollution Standard”
“Taking the Polar Bear Plunge” (to Raise Awareness of Global Climate Change)
they help communities to live out their ecological vocation

THESE WOULD BE HYSTERICAL AND A GOOD CONVERSATION IN A BAR IF THEY WEREN’T TRUE!!!

AgentRose on August 20, 2012 at 11:24 AM

Ah as it turns out “Think Progress is funded by George Soros”

The Center for American Progress is classified as a 501(c)(3) organization under U.S. Internal Revenue Code. The institute receives approximately $25 million per year in funding from a variety of sources, including individuals, foundations, and corporations, but it declines to release any information on the sources of its funding. No funders are listed on its website or in its Annual Report. From 2003 to 2007, the Center received about $15 million in grants from 58 foundations. Major individual donors include George Soros, Peter Lewis, Steve Bing, and Herb and Marion Sandler. The Center receives undisclosed sums from corporate donors.

hmm….

FAN and Soros?

AgentRose on August 20, 2012 at 11:25 AM

Roman Catholicism has been forever a Socialistic, Marxist religious organization for over 1,400 years. This is why Roman Catholics vote for democrats. They believe in social liberal ideas which are 100 percent contradictory to what our Lord and Saviour taught….
Shain1611 on August 20, 2012 at 9:01 AM

Maybe Shain1611 ought to peek out of his confusion and seek to learn the very Catholic principle of Subsidiarity which by itself stands as proof of the Church being anti-socialist?

Maybe Shain1611 ought to peek out fromm behind his Catholic predjudice and read an encyclical or two, such as the the one written by the great John Paul II (who personally destroyed (his priests from pushing) Marxist liberation theology) where he wrote with no equivication that the “welfare State” is evil.

Where do you get such deceit? Why do you believe such deceit? Our Lord and Saviour is all love and truth. Perhaps you might seek the truth before you excoriate His Church.

Don L on August 20, 2012 at 1:41 PM

Nor may a conscience well-formed by reason or the Catholic faith ever choose to vote for someone who clearly, consistently, persistently promotes that which is intrinsically evil.

And by extension Ed, they may not vote for a party that holds dearly the very same evils. Good “intent” is not to be considered justification for the evil they spread. Ironically, “intent” was the very word Obama used to justify infanticide as a Senator in Illinois.

Every Catholic knows that one cannot do an evil to bring about a greater good.(Though some of our leftist leaning bishops might need a basic catechism refresher course.)

This in no way excuses the GOP for its near singular focus upon money as the source of all concern.

Don L on August 20, 2012 at 1:50 PM

Well this makes sense.

Catholics should encourage more power, money, and control for the infallible and incorruptible Government.

Because Mankind, the Church, Jesus, and even GOD are flawed and fallible; only the Government can be trusted with absolute power and still avoid corruption.

At least I think that is their point; they trust government over all else and request the opportunity to force everyone to give more power, control, and money to the Federal government, by force if need be… in the Federal Government’s name.

Amen?

gekkobear on August 20, 2012 at 2:03 PM

Thank you, Ed. I’ve been waiting for a reasonable voice on the subject. Even the Anchoress went insane over it. She’s probably still frothing over how no one understands her and how Ryan supporters are no better than Palin supporters.

Keep up the good work, Ed.

tuffy on August 20, 2012 at 7:14 PM


Confuse it not however, with the LDS, who ONLY provide “charity” to other Mormons….
Karl Magnus on August 20, 2012 at 9:35 AM

This assertion is not quite accurate.

The LDS food canning facility in my part of the country regularly operates for the benefit of local food pantries, and I have participated in those canning sessions on numerous occasions. All of the food is donated by the LDS Church and the volunteers from the recipient organization are assisted by volunteers from local LDS units (wards and stakes).

I have personally, at the direction of my bishop, provided food and other relief services for non-LDS people in our local area.

Our stake just finished collecting school supplies for a local (non-LDS) aid center, and our women’s Relief Society sewed-crocheted-knitted over 1000 hats for them to distribute this winter. Last year we made baby receiving blankets for a hospital; one year we made teddy bears for the fire department to give to young accident victims.

Some of my family lived in Cedar Rapids Iowa at the time of the great flood a few years back; they spent hours every day for several weeks volunteering with the clean-up; the first Sunday after the flood, the Sunday meetings were pre-empted for a planning meeting on how best to assist the local authorities.

I had friends who went to Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina to help with the rebuilding, as did many other LDS volunteers throughout the country (along with groups from many other churches and organizations).

The LDS Church regularly and frequently collects money and supplies for disaster-afflicted areas throughout the US and the world, and operates in conjunction with the Red Cross and other international agencies, as well as other churches, in delivering those goods.

When we make donations, we can actually specify if the money is to be used for local needs (Fast Offering) or world-wide needs (Humanitarian aid). Any unneeded local funds (maybe you’ve heard that there are a few rich Mormons –) are directed to wherever the need is greatest.

Sorry, Karl: this dog won’t hunt.

AesopFan on August 21, 2012 at 1:05 AM

… And for those who want to visit and / or attend a Mormon “Temple” for a marriage, Baptism, whatever, you are NOT welcome. PERIOD. Classy folks, eh?
~(Ä)~
Karl Magnus on August 20, 2012 at 9:35 AM

Just a few clarifications on this one.

Everyone is WELCOME to come to a Mormon Temple, so long as they are willing to become a member in good standing of the LDS Church. Some members aren’t willing, or have trouble complying with the standards; many make the extra effort involved that allows them to participate in the joy of standing proxy for deceased family members and others in order to fulfil the gospel commandment of baptism.

All new temples, or renovated ones, are open to the general public for a period of time before being dedicated, after which entrance is restricted to qualified members; however, most temples have an area set aside for wedding guests, including under-age members of the couple’s families, LDS guests without temple recommends, and non-LDS friends.
Weddings within my family have, at some time or other, included people in all three categories, and they have not expressed any dismay at the situation.

The temple grounds at most locations are open to the public, and are always beautiful and well-kept.

As for regular Sunday and week-day meetings at local chapels or meeting-houses, everyone is certainly welcome, so long as they are not there with the intent to disturb the services or harass the attendees.

(Our ward did get a bit perturbed by the guys who set fire to the bathroom wastebaskets one morning because they didn’t approve of a friend’s decision to join the Church — maybe just a little over-the-top?)

AesopFan on August 21, 2012 at 1:21 AM

We rational people who lived in LDS country for decades know what they’re all about.
Karl Magnus on August 20, 2012 at 9:35 AM

You may think you know what those particular people are all about, but you can always meet poor representatives of any organization. The question is: were they acting in accordance with or contrary to the recognized standards and doctrines of the Church?

Extending your negative experiences to the entire group demonstrates the same fallacious reasoning that the leftists use to demonize the right; the Democrats, the Republicans; and the X, the Y (fill in your own blanks).

This entire article and most of the comments are a push-back against that attitude.

AesopFan on August 21, 2012 at 1:31 AM

Catholics are not obligated to believe that the government should provide for the poor, in fact Scripture says to give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and give to God what is God’s. Meaning, Catholics should keep government and Godly things separated, in most cases (things like life are part of government and the Church and have to be addressed by both parties).

The Church has a Godly obligation to support the poor, personally, not through the government. Money should be given to Catholic charities because it has an obligation to give the money to those in real need. The government has no such obligation and will most likely misappropriate our money.

Therefore, keeping more tax money in our pockets so that we can give a portion of it to the Church to care for the poor is the most proper use of our money and the proper function of the Church for the needy.

cmc on August 21, 2012 at 1:17 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3