Bishop criticizes USCCB committee’s reaction to Ryan budget

  • Thread starter Thread starter markomalley
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Red_Wolf said:
Congressman Ryan’s budget seems to be based largely on Blessed Pope John Paul II’s encyclical.
Click to expand...
I certainly doubt it. It has been a long time since I read it but please join me.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_01051991_centesimus-annus_en.html

The State must contribute to the achievement of these goals both directly and indirectly. Indirectly and according to the principle of subsidiarity, by creating favourable conditions for the free exercise of economic activity, which will lead to abundant opportunities for employment and sources of wealth. Directly and according to the principle of solidarity, by defending the weakest, by placing certain limits on the autonomy of the parties who determine working conditions, and by ensuring in every case the necessary minimum support for the unemployed worker.
 
markomalley said:
From Catholic World News:
During the discussion leading up to the vote, Bishop Earl Boyea of Lansing criticized the committee’s opposition to the budget plan put forward by Congressman Paul Ryan.

“There have been some concerns raised by lay Catholics, especially some Catholic economists, about what was perceived as a partisan action against Congressman Ryan and the budget he had proposed,” Bishop Boyea said in reference to the USCCB committee’s opposition to the House budget plan. “We need to be articulate only in principles, and let the laity make these applications … It was perceived as partisan, and thus didn’t really further dialogue in our deeply divided country.”

“I’m not sure that we have the humility yet not to stray into areas where we lack competence, and where we need to let the laity take the lead,” he added. “We need to learn far more than we need to teach in this area. We need to listen more than we need to speak. We already have an excellent, fine Compendium [on the Social Doctrine of the Church].”

(snip)

Echoing Bishop Boyea’s comments, Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City said that the committee is “at times perceived as partisan” and needs to consider the principle of subsidiarity, which has been “neglected in past documents.” Archbishop Naumann added that solutions that place emphasis in enrolling people in government programs have been “tried for decades” and failed.
Like a breath of fresh air!!!
Click to expand...
Good for this bishop. There is nothing more immoral than increasing our debt to the point that society can collapse. If that happens then cuts to social programs won’t matter because their will be no social programs. (And don’t even get me started on how the current budget funds attrocities like Planned Parenthood.)

Paul Ryan is a great Catholic and correct on the budget. I hope someday he becomes president.
 
The passage below is the Church’s constant reminder when studying its teaching on social justice. The Left never quotes it because it undermines the Left’s misrepresentation (often innocently, but sometimes not) of the Church’s “social doctrine”:

“It goes without saying that part of the responsibility of Pastors is to give careful consideration to current events in order to discern the new requirements of evangelization. However, such an analysis is not meant to pass definitive judgments since this does not fall per se within the Magisterium’s specific domain.”-- From JP II’s introduction to Centesimus annus, on the hundredth anniversary of Rerum Novarum, May, 1991.

Now, among others, comes a shepherd from a state which turned itself into a Leftist basket case because of its social policies beloved by the Catholic Left. Largely ignoring JP II’s above reminder, which exists to inform the Church’s social teaching, said shepherd loudly and publicly entered the partisan political brawl by asserting that the Republican’s current proposed budget fails to meet moral criteria and is unjust and wrong because the proposal is short on both taxes and spending.

Never mind that the Republican budget includes more welfare spending than even FDR could have dreamed of.

Thanks be to God for the 26 bishops like Boyea and Naumann. There is no doubt that they have allies among the other bishops who will vote for a more balanced USCCB position when the time comes. The question is, are there enough bishops to win the day for a clearly non-partisan, Roman Catholic statement–if there must be a statement at all.
 
KSU said:
“It goes without saying that part of the responsibility of Pastors is to give careful consideration to current events in order to discern the new requirements of evangelization. However, such an analysis is not meant to pass definitive judgments since this does not fall per se within the Magisterium’s specific domain.”-- From JP II’s introduction to Centesimus annus, on the hundredth anniversary of Rerum Novarum, May, 1991.

.
Click to expand...
Let us look at that quote in context.

What “analysis”?

“But pastoral solicitude also prompts me to propose an analysis of some events of recent history.”

as in:

The present Encyclical seeks to show the fruitfulness of the principles enunciated by Leo XIII, which belong to the Church’s doctrinal patrimony and, as such, involve the exercise of her teaching authority. But pastoral solicitude also prompts me to propose an analysis of some events of recent history. It goes without saying that part of the responsibility of Pastors is to give careful consideration to current events in order to discern the new requirements of evangelization. However, such an analysis is not meant to pass definitive judgments since this does not fall per se within the Magisterium’s specific domain.

The Pope here includes his own analysis on some events of recent history as not passing definitive judgements while the principles enunciated by Leo XIII retain the teaching authority. Centesimus Annus seeks to show the fruitfulness of those principles. You quote him as if he is speaking directly to the bishops’ critique of Ryan’s budget or any political, economic or social issue for that matter.

Who’s office is it then, to make a judgement as to the proper application of Leo’s principles if not the bishops in union with the Pope?
 
Michael_Mayo said:
Who’s office is it then, to make a judgement as to the proper application of Leo’s principles if not the bishops in union with the Pope?
Click to expand...
Let’s not forget, either, that the USCCB positions are not necessarily those of “the bishops”. To my understanding, only two bishops criticized the Ryan Plan, and on two bases only. They criticized:
  1. Reducing the rate of INCREASE in food stamps from 12% to 8% for this year.
  2. Eliminating the tax credit (check) of $1,000 per child to illegal aliens.
 
Michael_Mayo said:
Who’s office is it then, to make a judgement as to the proper application of Leo’s principles if not the bishops in union with the Pope?
Click to expand...
Ridgerunner said:
Let’s not forget, either, that the USCCB positions are not necessarily those of “the bishops”. To my understanding, only two bishops criticized the Ryan Plan.
Click to expand...
And, two bishops who criticized those two bishops’ comments through the USCCB are cited in the original post of this thread. I’m assuming Michael Mayo would agree that those bishops are also part of the office to “make a judgement as to the proper application of Leo’s principles,” yes?
 
rlg94086 said:
And, two bishops who criticized those two bishops’ comments through the USCCB are cited in the original post of this thread. I’m assuming Michael Mayo would agree that those bishops are also part of the office to “make a judgement as to the proper application of Leo’s principles,” yes?
Click to expand...
Seems so to me, which is a pretty good indicator that it’s all a matter of prudential judgment.
 
rlg94086 said:
And, two bishops who criticized those two bishops’ comments through the USCCB are cited in the original post of this thread. I’m assuming Michael Mayo would agree that those bishops are also part of the office to “make a judgement as to the proper application of Leo’s principles,” yes?
Click to expand...
Yes. It will be interesting to see their message entitled, Catholic Reflections on Work, Poverty and a Broken Economy, who signs and who dissents.
 
Michael_Mayo said:
Yes. It will be interesting to see their message entitled, Catholic Reflections on Work, Poverty and a Broken Economy, who signs and who dissents.
Click to expand...
Interesting to see who signs and dissents? Why? Are some bishops more genuinely Catholic than others?

Certainly, the statements from the bishops are informative on prudential matters, but they aren’t binding. As Catholics, we are able to develop our own opinions, as long as we are informing our opinions with Church teaching. As one of the bishops stated, some opinions voiced by bishops are areas where they “lack competence.”

We get to argue on the balance of solidarity and subsidiarity, quote encyclicals and other Church documents in the defense of our positions, etc. But, it still comes down to prudential judgement, when they are matters for prudential judgement, whether that judgement is made by a bishop or a layperson.
 
rlg94086 said:
Interesting to see who signs and dissents? Why? Are some bishops more genuinely Catholic than others?
Click to expand...
Not at all. I am confident of the genuine Catholicity of each and every one of them no matter how liberal or conservative others here may view them. And I do hope they can model for us constructive charitable dialogue.
 
Red_Wolf said:
Blessed Pope John Paul II’s encyclical 100 years (after Pope Leo XIII’s social justice encyclical) condemns the welfare state, largely for the deficits. Right of private property and the government’s responsibility to maintain a sound currency feature in it. Our Dominicans are running a review of all the social justice encyclicals, from Pope Leo XIII on, in their news letter.
Click to expand...
That is a rather unbalanced synopsis. One would never guess it also says this:
  1. Another important aspect, which has many applications to our own day, is the concept of the relationship between the State and its citizens. Rerum novarum criticizes two social and economic systems: socialism and liberalism. The opening section, in which the right to private property is reaffirmed, is devoted to socialism. Liberalism is not the subject of a special section, but it is worth noting that criticisms of it are raised in the treatment of the duties of the State. The State cannot limit itself to “favouring one portion of the citizens”, namely the rich and prosperous, nor can it “neglect the other”, which clearly represents the majority of society. Otherwise, there would be a violation of that law of justice which ordains that every person should receive his due. “When there is question of defending the rights of individuals, the defenceless and the poor have a claim to special consideration. The richer class has many ways of shielding itself, and stands less in need of help from the State; whereas the mass of the poor have no resources of their own to fall back on, and must chiefly depend on the assistance of the State. It is for this reason that wage-earners, since they mostly belong to the latter class, should be specially cared for and protected by the Government”.
These passages are relevant today, especially in the face of the new forms of poverty in the world, and also because they are affirmations which do not depend on a specific notion of the State or on a particular political theory. Leo XIII is repeating an elementary principle of sound political organization, namely, the more that individuals are defenceless within a given society, the more they require the care and concern of others, and in particular the intervention of governmental authority.

and this:
  1. Re-reading the Encyclical in the light of contemporary realities enables us to appreciate the Church’s constant concern for and dedication to categories of people who are especially beloved to the Lord Jesus. The content of the text is an excellent testimony to the continuity within the Church of the so-called "preferential option for the poor", an option which I defined as a “special form of primacy in the exercise of Christian charity”. Pope Leo’s Encyclical on the “condition of the workers” is thus an Encyclical on the poor and on the terrible conditions to which the new and often violent process of industrialization had reduced great multitudes of people. Today, in many parts of the world, similar processes of economic, social and political transformation are creating the same evils.
Congressman Ryan’s budget seems to be based largely on Blessed Pope John Paul II’s encyclical.
Click to expand...
I would like to see some connections made between Ryan’s budget and Centesimus Annus. I don’t mean that in a snarky way. I’m here to learn.
 
Passage from an interview with Paul Ryan:

QUOTE S.E. Cupp: The Conference of Catholic Bishops called the proposed cuts in your budget “unacceptable” and “unjustified and wrong,” and said the budget “fails to meet [Catholic] moral criteria.” How can Catholics have such divergent views on the same issue?

Paul Ryan: These are matters for prudential judgment, and people of good will can have a difference of opinion on these important issues. There’s plenty of room to disagree on how best to advance the common good and the principles of the Social Magisterium. I cannot claim exclusive justification for my application of Catholic social teaching. What I can say is that I believe the reforms in the House-passed budget are in complete accord with Catholic social truths as I understand them.

As a congressman and Catholic layman, I really feel that Catholic social truths are in accord with the “self-evident truths” our Founders bequeathed to us at our nation’s founding: independence, limited government and the dignity and freedom of every human person. As chairman of the House Budget Committee, it’s my job to apply these enduring principles to the urgent social problems of our time: an economy that is not providing enough opportunities for our citizens, a safety net that is failing our most vulnerable populations, and a crushing burden of debt that is threatening our children and grandchildren with a diminished future.

We cannot continue to ignore this problem. The Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, has rightly termed such irresponsible debt burdens as “living in untruth … at the expense of future generations.” In approaching this problem as a lay Catholic in public life, I have found it useful to apply the twin principles of solidarity (recognition of the common ties that unite all human beings in equal dignity) and subsidiarity (respect for the relationships between individuals and intermediate social groups such as families, businesses, schools, local communities and state governments).

Our budget incorporates solidarity by recognizing a critical role for government in providing a strong safety net for those in need. And it restores the balance between solidarity and subsidiarity by returning a lot of power to individuals, to families and to communities. We are a nation that prides itself on looking out for one another—and government has an important role to play in that. But relying on distant government bureaucracies to lead this effort just hasn’t worked.

Some Catholics seem to mistake the preferential option for the poor for a preferential option for Big Government. When you look at the results of that approach—one out of every six Americans in poverty today, many of them mired in programs whose outdated structures often act as a trap that hinders upward mobility—that’s just not consistent with how I understand my Catholic faith. We need to break down the barriers to opportunity and attack the root causes of poverty. Informed by constitutional oath and my Catholic faith, this is a moral obligation I take very seriously. END QUOTE
townhall.com/tipsheet/elisabethmeinecke/2012/05/25/exclusive_paul_ryan_responds_to_catholic_budget_controversy
 
Mimi said:
townhall.com/tipsheet/elisabe…et_controversy

Thank you! This was very helpful.

A woman religious at my church wants to know how to respond to the “nuns on the bus” who will be coming through my area tomorrow. She wants to defend Ryan.

For Liberty,
Mimi
Click to expand...
She should ignore them. Entering into a discussion with “nuns on the bus” is not just a waste of time, it would be, at least for me, a near occasion of sin because I don’t easily suffer dishonesty and radicalism from people who I believe are closer to Saul Alinsky and the Democrat Party than the Church, but nevertheless want to be called Catholic sisters.
 
KSU said:
She should ignore them. Entering into a discussion with “nuns on the bus” is not just a waste of time, it would be, at least for me, a near occasion of sin because I don’t easily suffer dishonesty and radicalism from people who I believe are closer to Saul Alinsky and the Democrat Party than the Church, but nevertheless want to be called Catholic sisters.
Click to expand...
I guess dedicating your life to Christ is not enough. What have you done that is comparable?
 
NOTICE

Negative and rude comments toward CAF members, clergy (deacons, priests and bishops) or toward religious and religious orders are banned.

Everyone, online and offline, deserves to be spoken to and about respectfully. However, some posters seem to feel that clergy and religious are fair game.

If you have an issue with them, take it up in private, not on this forum or any of our forums.

You may cite something from another source, if you are not using it to further an agenda. Agenda posting is not allowed.

If we deem that you are disrespectful to our clergy and religious, you will receive an infraction or even a ban.

Proof what you write before you post.

You may not make disparaging remarks about:
  • Vatican II
  • Clergy (deacons, priests and bishops) of any group
  • Religious (brothers, sisters, and nuns) of any order or congregation
  • Lawful actions and disciiplines by the Church including the historical excommunication of the SSPX. It happened. Rome explained why it happened. End of story. Rome did not put it out there for debate by the faithful.
  • Another poster or his/her ideas. You can disagree. You cannot attack,insult, ridicule or dismiss as unimportant. His opinion is as important to him as your opinion is to you.
  • Parishes, pastors, civil leaders.
  • Other religions – if you’re unsure how to speak in public about other faiths, look at the Pope Benedict XVI. He is fraternal, polite, and intellectual in discussing religious differences.
Avoid arguments that will lead to violations of charity. You don’t have to like what you read and others do not have to like what you post. But you must be civil toward each other and those who are not on the forum.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top