Bishop criticizes USCCB committee’s reaction to Ryan budget

[KSU]

What do you mean by that?

It means, Michael, that nobody needs you to play moderator on your own behalf. Trust me, Robert is more than capable of doing his job, and, besides, it’s just not cricket.

This is meant as a fraternal correction: On more than one occasion Robert could have reminded you of the proscription against disparaging remarks about clergy or another poster’s comment, yet you have no qualms protesting the alleged lack of “charitable” dialogue by others with whom you disagree.

Let’s all concentrate solely on the OP’s comment.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

It means, Michael, that nobody needs you to play moderator on your own behalf. Trust me, Robert is more than capable of doing his job, and, besides, it’s just not cricket.

This is meant as a fraternal correction: On more than one occasion Robert could have reminded you of the proscription against disparaging remarks about clergy or another poster’s comment, yet you have no qualms protesting the alleged lack of “charitable” dialogue by others with whom you disagree.

Let’s all concentrate solely on the OP’s comment.

I would have welcomed Robert’s reminder as I do yours.

Very well then.

But along with the OP, RedWolf stated, “Congressman Ryan’s budget seems to be based largely on Blessed Pope John Paul II’s encyclical.” Centesimus annus

I offered a link to that and welcomed others to read along with me with the Bishops’ reaction to Ryan’s budget in mind. I am enjoying the reading and would also be interested in other’s comments on it. I think it speaks to the complexity of several issues.

 

[KSU]

I would have welcomed Robert’s reminder as I do yours.
Very well then.

Thank you, Michael.

But along with the OP, RedWolf stated, “Congressman Ryan’s budget seems to be based largely on Blessed Pope John Paul II’s encyclical.” Centesimus annus
I offered a link to that and welcomed others to read along with me with the Bishops’ reaction to Ryan’s budget in mind. I am enjoying the reading and would also be interested in other’s comments on it. I think it speaks to the complexity of several issues.

Sorry, Michael, I’m not sure what you are asking. If you are inviting me to provide a second comment on your link to Centesimus annus *, here it is:
BACKGROUND
In #21, I pointed out that when the Holy Father said “…such an analysis is not meant to pass definitive judgments since this does not fall per se within the Magisterium’s specific domain.”, he was reminding the bishops and everyone else that (in the words of Bishop Earl Boyea) ," bishops are not to stray into areas where we lack competence, and where we need to let the laity take the lead… 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].”
Archbishop Joseph Naumann then agreed and said the bishops are “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.

Your response in #22, Michael, was: " You quote him [the Holy Father] as if he is speaking directly to the bishops’ critique of Ryan’s budget or any political, economic or social issue for that matter."

MY REPLY TO YOUR POST #22

I was quoting the Holy Father in that manner precisely because it’s true–he was speaking to all bishops, including future bishops. The Holy Father, contrary to what you seem to be proposing, intended to be taken literally and authoritatively. If he was not speaking ex cathedra, it was most certainly spoken in the exercise of the Church’s magisterium, i.e., it’s not a matter subject to debate per se.

If I have misinterpreted your post #22, please let me know.*

 

[Michael_Mayo]

MY REPLY TO YOUR POST #22

I was quoting the Holy Father in that manner precisely because it’s true–he was speaking to all bishops, including future bishops. The Holy Father, contrary to what you seem to be proposing, intended to be taken literally and authoritatively. If he was not speaking ex cathedra, it was most certainly spoken in the exercise of the Church’s magisterium, i.e., it’s not a matter subject to debate per se.

If I have misinterpreted your post #22, please let me know.

No. And I guess I am confused because the principles of Rerum Novarum and Centesimus do seem to get quite specific and are in the magisterium’s specific domain. Principles such as the fundamental rights of workers to form trade unions and earn wages sufficient to support himself, his wife and his children, state care and protection of the poor, etc, etc.

I do not understand the pope. He says it is part of the reponsibility of Pastors to give careful consideration to current events in order to discern the new requirements of evangelization. And speaks of the social teaching as an essential element of the “new evangelization”. Yet he follows with the words you quote that such an analysis is not meant to pass definitive judgements since this does not fall per se within the Magisterium’s specific domain.

So pastors, including himself in this and Leo’s encyclicals, are required to do this analysis that will pass no definitive judgements. It sounds like he is undermining the social teaching authority.

 

[ljpgoodwin]

the principle of subsidiarity is perhaps one of the most crucial and most misunderstood in Catholic social teaching. According to the principle of subsidiarity, decisions should be made at the lowest level possible and the highest level necessary.

catholicmoraltheology.com/subsidiarity-is-a-two-sided-coin/

There are five principles of Catholic social morality. Subsidiarity is only one of them.

1. THE PRINCIPLE OF THE COMMON GOOD
2. THE UNIVERSAL DESTINATION OF GOODS
3. THE PRINCIPLE OF SUBSIDIARITY
4. PARTICIPATION
5. THE PRINCIPLE OF SOLIDARITY

See chapter 4 of the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church.
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html

When looking at subsidiarity it has to be understood as part of a bigger context that includes principles 1,2, and 5.
The Church teaches that when the private and or local sector can not or will not provide the necessary services for the citizens of the nation, the government has the right and moral obligation to step in and see that things get done.
As Catholics we have to come together on these issues because the ideas from the tea party and Fox News are profoundly worldly, secular and un-Catholic. It is ripping us apart. The economics proposed by the tea party, Fox News and Paul Ryan are much more in line with Calvinist/Protestant economics. The Catholic perspective is much more communal than is the Calvinist/Protestant. Our communal perspective is one of the things that makes Catholicism truly distinctive truly Trinitarian and truly Christ like.

 

[rlg94086]

There are five principles of Catholic social morality. Subsidiarity is only one of them.

1. THE PRINCIPLE OF THE COMMON GOOD
2. THE UNIVERSAL DESTINATION OF GOODS
3. THE PRINCIPLE OF SUBSIDIARITY
4. PARTICIPATION
5. THE PRINCIPLE OF SOLIDARITY

See chapter 4 of the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church.
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html

When looking at subsidiarity it has to be understood as part of a bigger context that includes principles 1,2, and 5.
The Church teaches that when the private and or local sector can not or will not provide the necessary services for the citizens of the nation, the government has the right and moral obligation to step in and see that things get done.
As Catholics we have to come together on these issues because the ideas from the tea party and Fox News are profoundly worldly, secular and un-Catholic. It is ripping us apart. The economics proposed by the tea party, Fox News and Paul Ryan are much more in line with Calvinist/Protestant economics. The Catholic perspective is much more communal than is the Calvinist/Protestant. Our communal perspective is one of the things that makes Catholicism truly distinctive truly Trinitarian and truly Christ like.

Weird. I’ve studied the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church and came to a completely different conclusion than you. Does that make me a Tea Party/Fox News/Paul Ryan Calvinist/Protestant? How about the bishops and priests who agree with my approach and don’t have a particular problem with Paul Ryan’s budget? Are their understandings of Church teaching Calvinist/Protestant?

 

[KSU]

No. And I guess I am confused because the principles of Rerum Novarum and Centesimus do seem to get quite specific and are in the magisterium’s specific domain. Principles such as the fundamental rights of workers to form trade unions and earn wages sufficient to support himself, his wife and his children, state care and protection of the poor, etc, etc.

I do not understand the pope. He says it is part of the responsibility of Pastors to give careful consideration to current events in order to discern the new requirements of evangelization. And speaks of the social teaching as an essential element of the “new evangelization”. Yet he follows with the words you quote that such an analysis is not meant to pass definitive judgements since this does not fall per se within the Magisterium’s specific domain.

So pastors, including himself in this and Leo’s encyclicals, are required to do this analysis that will pass no definitive judgements. It sounds like he is undermining the social teaching authority.

Thanks for that confirmation and further explanation. As I see it, Michael, (and I am no Aquinas) you may be looking too deeply for the pope’s meaning in a case where he meant to be taken at face value. I generally believe as you do,"… the PRINCIPLES [my caps] of Rerum Novarum and Centesimus do seem to get quite specific and are in the magisterium’s specific domain."

That’s why he added the reminder that he did not mean he necessarily was more qualified and competent in the myriad specifics of secular government than competent lay authorities. And the operative word is “principles.” A principle, while, basic, is only a general truth or law. E.G., Workers have a general right to form trade unions, but that hardly means that a bishop whose heart is with the workers is thereby competent to demand of owners, on pain of damnation, that the owners grant unions everything unions demand. That a truth may be both basic and general at the same time may be what confused you. (I dearly loved the man, but his writing style, or at least translations thereof, sometimes made me dizzy.)

He was saying that in secular matters a pope or bishop can propose, but he must allow the competent secular authority to dispose. That is, in secular matters render onto Caesar the things (specifics) that are Caesar’s, but to God the things (moral, principled lives and actions) that are God’s.

Still, the pope did not say pastors are required to do analysis that will pass no definitive judgements. Our non-Catholic friends (and some of my Catholic friends as well ) would love that. On matters of faith and morals pastors of course are required to make definitive judgements. That’s what he meant by “…within the Magisterium’s specific domain.”

The pope simply was reminding Catholics of the principle that no pastor should ever make a politically partisan, definitive judgement such as, “Catholics have to come together on issues like the Ryan budget because the ideas from the tea party and Fox News are profoundly worldly, secular and un-Catholic. It is ripping us apart.”

 

[Michael_Mayo]

That a truth may be both basic and general at the same time may be what confused you.

Yes, and when does analysis pass definitive judgements. Principles can get specific but I suppose could always get even more specific in how they are implemented. So I do respect Ryan’s prudential judgment even though I do not agree with it.

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.]

He is entitled to his judgment and the Bishops (as a group and individuals) are entitled to theirs just as we are. In these matters there is “wiggle room” unlike intrinsic evil though even there we can talk about degrees of cooperation.

rlg94086:

The economics proposed by the tea party, Fox News and Paul Ryan are much more in line with Calvinist/Protestant economics. The Catholic perspective is much more communal than is the Calvinist/Protestant. Our communal perspective is one of the things that makes Catholicism truly distinctive truly Trinitarian and truly Christ like.

I tend to agree about the leanings here of one approach being more individualistic and another more communal. But I say “leanings” because both extremes are wrong and warned about in Rerum & Centesimus.

BTW, I found this site with not only the encyclicals but also good referenced summaries:
educationforjustice.org/catholic-social-teaching/encyclicals-and-documents

 

[rlg94086]

Yes, and when does analysis pass definitive judgements. Principles can get specific but I suppose could always get even more specific in how they are implemented. So I do respect Ryan’s prudential judgment even though I do not agree with it.

He is entitled to his judgment and the Bishops (as a group and individuals) are entitled to theirs just as we are. In these matters there is “wiggle room” unlike intrinsic evil though even there we can talk about degrees of cooperation.

I tend to agree about the leanings here of one approach being more individualistic and another more communal. But I say “leanings” because both extremes are wrong and warned about in Rerum & Centesimus.

BTW, I found this site with not only the encyclicals but also good referenced summaries:
educationforjustice.org/catholic-social-teaching/encyclicals-and-documents

Here is the problem with pointing at the Ryan Budget as “extreme” individualism. A) It’s not…Ryan is not calling for the end of all government programs. B) Even if Ryan was calling for the end of all federal government programs, there are still states.

I happen to believe that you can be fully in line with Church teaching and be opposed to any federal social programs. In fact, it can be argued that having the programs at the state/county/city level is more in line with Church teaching than federalizing them. The Constitution works well as a framework.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Here is the problem with pointing at the Ryan Budget as “extreme” individualism.

But I didn’t, I said it was a leaning.

 

[rlg94086]

But I didn’t, I said it was a leaning.

And, leaning is fine…prudential judgement. It certainly doesn’t call for branding people, political movements, and TV networks (? ) as “Calviinistic/Protestant.” Cutting back on bloated, federal bureaucracy and minimizing the Welfare State is a good thing from a Catholic perspective.

 

[gnjsdad]

Here is the problem with pointing at the Ryan Budget as “extreme” individualism. A) It’s not…Ryan is not calling for the end of all government programs. B) Even if Ryan was calling for the end of all federal government programs, there are still states.

I happen to believe that you can be fully in line with Church teaching and be opposed to any federal social programs. In fact, it can be argued that having the programs at the state/county/city level is more in line with Church teaching than federalizing them. The Constitution works well as a framework.

The problem with your proposal is history. The last time the capitalist system failed as miserably as it has today was the Great Depression. Back then, people were making the same arguments that you are making now. There’s no need for Federal involvement. Let the states handle all the people with no work. Let their county or their city take care of the problem. If worse comes to worse, they can go to private charity. The problem was that, before too long, these more local entities ran out of resources. Intensely proud people who would do just about anything to avoid private charity wound up having, out of necessity, not for themselves, but for their childrens’ sake, to go on charity. Even so, private charity ran out of money. The Federal government HAD to step in and save capitalism from itself; thus, the New Deal.

Cong. Ryan seems to want to go back to the days before the government was able to save the capitalists from their own excesses.

 

[rlg94086]

The problem with your proposal is history. The last time the capitalist system failed as miserably as it has today was the Great Depression. Back then, people were making the same arguments that you are making now. There’s no need for Federal involvement. Let the states handle all the people with no work. Let their county or their city take care of the problem. If worse comes to worse, they can go to private charity. The problem was that, before too long, these more local entities ran out of resources. Intensely proud people who would do just about anything to avoid private charity wound up having, out of necessity, not for themselves, but for their childrens’ sake, to go on charity. Even so, private charity ran out of money. The Federal government HAD to step in and save capitalism from itself; thus, the New Deal.

Cong. Ryan seems to want to go back to the days before the government was able to save the capitalists from their own excesses.

That’s funny. The bloated federal bureaucracy has failed, and you believe the solution is more bloated federal bureaucracy.

You bring up history and the Depression, but you fail to recognize that the current scheme that has failed, is the one you advocate.

Or, do you want to get away from capitalism entirely?

 

[gnjsdad]

That’s funny. The bloated federal bureaucracy has failed, and you believe the solution is more bloated federal bureaucracy.

You bring up history and the Depression, but you fail to recognize that the current scheme that has failed, is the one you advocate.

If “the bloated federal bureaucracy” has failed, it’s because the section of it responsible for overseeing the banking interests which caused this economic disaster was asleep at the switch. Or worse, coopted by the banking interests. That includes Congress and supposed watchdogs like the SEC and the CFTC.

rlg94086:

Or, do you want to get away from capitalism entirely?

Absolutely. It’s a system that has failed with bubbles and busts numerous times, twice cataclysmically in the last century. It has given rise to an evil and misguided reaction (militant atheistic socialism/communism) at least once; who knows what the future will hold. It needs to be replaced by an economics as if God matters.

 

[stevegravy]

If “the bloated federal bureaucracy” has failed, it’s because the section of it responsible for overseeing the banking interests which caused this economic disaster was asleep at the switch. Or worse, coopted by the banking interests. That includes Congress and supposed watchdogs like the SEC and the CFTC.

Absolutely. It’s a system that has failed with bubbles and busts numerous times, twice cataclysmically in the last century. It has given rise to an evil and misguided reaction (militant atheistic socialism/communism) at least once; who knows what the future will hold. It needs to be replaced by an economics as if God matters.

Do you have any wonderful examples of blithely serene lands where capitalism isn’t practiced that are awash in something other than subsistence farming?

 

[Ridgerunner]

The problem with your proposal is history. The last time the capitalist system failed as miserably as it has today was the Great Depression. Back then, people were making the same arguments that you are making now. There’s no need for Federal involvement. Let the states handle all the people with no work. Let their county or their city take care of the problem. If worse comes to worse, they can go to private charity. The problem was that, before too long, these more local entities ran out of resources. Intensely proud people who would do just about anything to avoid private charity wound up having, out of necessity, not for themselves, but for their childrens’ sake, to go on charity. Even so, private charity ran out of money. The Federal government HAD to step in and save capitalism from itself; thus, the New Deal.

Cong. Ryan seems to want to go back to the days before the government was able to save the capitalists from their own excesses.

There is a respectable body of expert opinion to the effect that the New Deal (or aspects of it) were precisely what caused the Depression to be as long as it was. The biggest problem was the discouragement of small business, which was a direct result of the NRA among other programs. But the NRA was the worst. Today, small business is not rebounding precisely because they are discouraged due to the radical nature of this administration and their inability to project costs of business due to its actions. That is well known.

On the other hand, in the 1980 recession, the economy came back quickly, and part of it was due to the then administration’s removal of impediments and encouraging approach to business.

History really doesn’t support a leftist ideological approach to economic downturns.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

We have been talking about prudential judgement and how we do not have to always agree with the bishops in political matters. While the budget is one example Healthcare Reform is another. Thus CHA went one way and the bishops another. Perhaps even interpretation of religious liberty as in the Fortnight for Freedom cause. Where does one draw the line? I prefer to err on the side of the bishops.

 

[rlg94086]

If “the bloated federal bureaucracy” has failed, it’s because the section of it responsible for overseeing the banking interests which caused this economic disaster was asleep at the switch. Or worse, coopted by the banking interests. That includes Congress and supposed watchdogs like the SEC and the CFTC.

Absolutely. It’s a system that has failed with bubbles and busts numerous times, twice cataclysmically in the last century. It has given rise to an evil and misguided reaction (militant atheistic socialism/communism) at least once; who knows what the future will hold. It needs to be replaced by an economics as if God matters.

Thank you for letting us know where you stand. It explains a lot.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

We have been talking about prudential judgement and how we do not have to always agree with the bishops in political matters. While the budget is one example Healthcare Reform is another. Thus CHA went one way and the bishops another. Perhaps even interpretation of religious liberty as in the Fortnight for Freedom cause. Where does one draw the line? I prefer to err on the side of the bishops.

I agree.

Except in this case there are bishops on both sides.

 

[rlg94086]

There is a respectable body of expert opinion to the effect that the New Deal (or aspects of it) were precisely what caused the Depression to be as long as it was. The biggest problem was the discouragement of small business, which was a direct result of the NRA among other programs. But the NRA was the worst. Today, small business is not rebounding precisely because they are discouraged due to the radical nature of this administration and their inability to project costs of business due to its actions. That is well known.

On the other hand, in the 1980 recession, the economy came back quickly, and part of it was due to the then administration’s removal of impediments and encouraging approach to business.

History really doesn’t support a leftist ideological approach to economic downturns.

No. It doesn’t.