Bishop criticizes USCCB committee’s reaction to Ryan budget

[gnjsdad]

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.

That may or may not be true, but my point is that there would be no need for a New Deal if the capitalist system did not run itself off a cliff, causing the Depression in the first place.

Ridgerunner:

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.

That is well asserted…

Other factors include

The reluctance of banks making record profits to lend to small business

The enormous influence large corporate entities have on Congress

The considerable advantages large corporations have to outsource jobs, thus inhibiting competition from small businesses
Ridgerunnner:

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

I agree. I am trying to articluate a Catholic approach to economics, because leftism (socialism) and rightism (libertarian/capitalism) don’t work.

 

[jwinch2]

catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=31740
Saving Private Ryan: How A One-Time GOP Backbencher Can Rescue The Democratic Crown Jewel

 

[KSU]

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.

You continue to imply that you have difficulty in seeing the difference between making prudential judgements in matters of 99% pure politics such as the specifics of the Ryan budget, which are NOT in the magisterium’s specific domain, and on the other hand in matters of faith and morals such as the specifics of the anti-Catholic mandate–abortifacients, contraception, etc.-- which of course ARE in the magisterium’s specific domain. It should be clear where one draws the line–a line the existence of which JP II confirmed in Centesimus as a governing principle to understanding social justice doctrine.

Accordingly, erring on the side of the bishops in matters of faith and morals should be a given; authentic Catholics don’t have and don’t want much of an option regarding which side to come down on concerning the dissident position of the CHA…

It’s impossible to confer upon the CHA’s position a status worthy of susceptibility to Catholic prudential judgement, as though it were equal to Congressman Ryan’s proposal to merely slow the rate of increase in some government programs commonly known to be bloated and wasteful; programs, some of which in the opinion of Archbishop Naumann, are lacking in the principle of subsidiarity, and which have been tried for decades and failed.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

You continue to imply that you have difficulty in seeing the difference between making prudential judgements in matters of 99% pure politics such as the specifics of the Ryan budget, which are NOT in the magisterium’s specific domain, and on the other hand in matters of faith and morals such as the specifics of the anti-Catholic mandate–abortifacients, contraception, etc.-- which of course ARE in the magisterium’s specific domain. It should be clear where one draws the line–a line the existence of which JP II confirmed in Centesimus as a governing principle to understanding social justice doctrine.

Accordingly, erring on the side of the bishops in matters of faith and morals should be a given; authentic Catholics don’t have and don’t want much of an option regarding which side to come down on concerning the dissident position of the CHA…

It’s impossible to confer upon the CHA’s position a status worthy of susceptibility to Catholic prudential judgement, as though it were equal to Congressman Ryan’s proposal to merely slow the rate of increase in some government programs commonly known to be bloated and wasteful; programs, some of which in the opinion of Archbishop Naumann, are lacking in the principle of subsidiarity, and which have been tried for decades and failed.

For abortifacients, anything related to direct abortion, contraception, embryonic stem cell research, etc (the non negotiables) it is clear.
Now the CHA proposes a different definition of what would constitute a religious employer.
“We continue to believe that it is imperative for the Administration to abandon the narrow definition of “religious employer” and instead use an expanded definition to exempt from the contraceptive mandate not only churches, but also Catholic hospitals, health care organizations and other ministries of the Church.”

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops clearly rejected the language last September. “…uch an exemption would be inadequate, because it would fail to protect many stakeholders with a moral or religious objection to contraceptives or sterilization, including individuals, insurers, and even many religiously affiliated organizations.”

CHA is composed of some pretty well educated and intelligent people who might then argue prudential judgement in this matter of definition. Simply claiming that it is impossible to confer upon the CHA’s position a status worthy of susceptibility to Catholic prudential judgement would not go far with Sister Keehan and her crowd, a large crowd of Catholics in healthcare leadership. Where one draws the line is at the root of the Church’s difficulties and goes right along with the LCWR issues.

blog.cardinalnewmansociety.org/2012/06/15/sister-keehan-cha-push-dangerous-compromise-on-hhs-mandate-again/

 

[KSU]

“Simply claiming that it is impossible to confer upon the CHA’s position a status worthy of susceptibility to Catholic prudential judgement would not go far with Sister Keehan and her crowd”

Well, Michael, Sister’s position is as well grounded in Church teaching as the Obama Administration’s position. Thank you for linking to it; I will give it all the thought it deserves.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

“Simply claiming that it is impossible to confer upon the CHA’s position a status worthy of susceptibility to Catholic prudential judgement would not go far with Sister Keehan and her crowd”

Well, Michael, Sister’s position is as well grounded in Church teaching as the Obama Administration’s position. Thank you for linking to it; I will give it all the thought it deserves.

I linked you a Cardinal Newman Society critique of it.
Maybe that is deserving of your thought.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

I might add that I don’t have much choice. I am really not that much interested in political issues. Just not my cup of tea. I’d much rather keep silent and at peace but my work situation surrounds me with CHA, some remaining sisters, and now with Obama coming at us, no one can sit on the sidelines. We all need to be well informed.

 

[ljpgoodwin]

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?

What is the “completely different conclusion” that you came to regarding the Compendium? In a word, I would answer “yes” to you question about the Ryan budget. All but 5 or 6 of the U.S. bishops have said the Ryan budget is not in keeping with the common good of this country. The USCCB and Catholic Charities USA are lobbying against the Ryan budget.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that the Ryan budget is evil or bad or immoral. What I am saying is that it does not stand up against what our Catholic traditions says a national budget should look like. Catholic social morality tends to like things like a national healthcare or other entitlement programs that collect taxes to help poor people pay for college, or buy a home such as we saw with the G.I. Bill of 1944.
http://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/washingtonweekly
Take a look, if you are so inclined, at the kinds of things that Catholic Charities USA (CCUSA) is advocating for in Washington. Catholic Charities works hand in hand with the USCCB.
http://www.usccb.org/about/government-relations/legislative-issues/
Also, if you are so inclined, here is a link where you can see the issue that the USCCB and Congress are in dialogue about. It does not take long to see that CCUSA the USCCB expect much more direct government action than the Ryan budget would provide for. The USCCB and CCUSA understand and expect the government to take a proactive and direct role in many, many aspects of American life that the Ryan budget would just defund and or cut. Food stamps, The Dream Act, Head Start, Pell Grants, WICK, Medicare, Medicaid, Adoption and Foster Care Services, C-CHIP, Social Security, and a number of other entitlement programs are all examples of programs that CCUSA and the USCCB support and that the Ryan budget would greatly reduce funding for or eliminate all together. This is a clear example of how different the Catholic perspective is from the Ryan budget. Granted, Paul Ryan and many of his colleagues would say that the private sector can and should take the lead here. But Catholic social morality would prefer that these kinds of services should continue (and increased) to be funded by taxes and administered in a combination of public, private and non-profit agencies.
For the most part, a Calvinist/Protestant approach would be much more in-line with the Ryan budget, which advocates for very limited government apart from military and privatizing as much as possible. I am not trying to pass any kind of judgment on the Calvinist/Protestant/Ryan approach. I am just pointing out some of the fundamental differences between a Catholic vs. Calvinist approach on how to run a country.
If you don’t agree, tell me what you thing Catholic social morality says about the meaning of the five foundational principles of:
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
I would be very interested in hearing what you think numbers 1 and 2 mean. You can find the text of the Compendium at:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...peace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html
These five foundational principles are discussed in chapter 4.

 

[KSU]

I linked you a Cardinal Newman Society critique of it.
Maybe that is deserving of your thought.

I understand and appreciate it. What I was referring to was the CHA position (included in the CNS link you provided), and your no doubt correct guess as to what the CHA crowd would think of my assessment of its position, which, again, is:

“It’s impossible to confer upon the CHA’s position a status worthy of susceptibility to Catholic prudential judgement, as though it were equal to Congressman Ryan’s proposal to merely slow the rate of increase in some government programs commonly known to be bloated and wasteful; programs, some of which in the opinion of Archbishop Naumann, are lacking in the principle of subsidiarity, and which have been tried for decades and failed.”

My point in #63, Michael, was that the CHA position is falsely put forward as acceptable Catholic thought. But, because the matter concerns faith and morals and thus falls within the Magisterium’s specific domain, CHA has no grounds to ignore the bishops’ decision about it as though the matter was akin to the Ryan budget (i.e., outside the Magisterium’s specific domain,) and thus susceptible to an argument of prudential judgement. Therefore, even though “CHA is composed of some pretty well educated and intelligent people who might then argue prudential judgement in this matter” is worthy of no further thought whatsoever.

Sorry for the shorthand version in #63. Now that you made me type the long version, I’ve missed the TV program I was going to watch before bed (The Five rerun on FOX.).

 

[Ridgerunner]

That may or may not be true, but my point is that there would be no need for a New Deal if the capitalist system did not run itself off a cliff, causing the Depression in the first place.

That is well asserted…

Other factors include

The reluctance of banks making record profits to lend to small business

The enormous influence large corporate entities have on Congress

The considerable advantages large corporations have to outsource jobs, thus inhibiting competition from small businesses

I agree. I am trying to articluate a Catholic approach to economics, because leftism (socialism) and rightism (libertarian/capitalism) don’t work.

Never, ever, ever have I said I support radical liberatarian versions of capitalism. Never. The Church has long taught that there are societal obligations to those who are in need and cannot help themselves. This society does a very poor job of that, the politicians instead opting to “buy votes” with middle class welfare schemes; the very thing the popes have condemned. I’ll admit that some state and local governments have done a much better job of it.

What is not well recognized is that the Dems have not done a bit better than the Repubs on that score. In fact, since the Dems “crowd out” the poor by ever-burgeoning middle class welfare schemes, and at least currently depress the job market, right now the Dems are clearly the worse of the two.

I’ll quibble with you on the bank issue. Current regulation of banks makes it very difficult for them to lend to small businesses. Ask any community banker, in particular, and he’ll tell you that in a heartbeat. Paradoxically, however, the continued resistance of the government to reform of FNMA and FHLMC, which are still buying bad home loans, threatens another downturn, and not far from now. That’s made worse by government guarantees of bad business loans.

Accepting that you really are trying to formulate a genuinely Catholic approach to economics, one could not do better than to recommend the social encyclicals for basics. I suspect you have read them, and I will agree with what I think you would say, that they don’t really go into specifics but deal with principles. For more specific kinds of information, I recommend “Redeeming Economics” by John Mueller. It can be a trying read because it’s so packed with statistics, charts, etc. However, it is readable for the most part. Fundamentally what he’s trying to do in his book is to apply classic Catholic economic principles to a modern economy. Some of his recommendations would not be particularly popular with either liberals or conservatives; for example his position that we should simply abandon the “pay in advance” notion of Social Security retirement, and accept that it is, in reality, and ought to be forthrightly pursued, as a “pay as you go” system. He would improve aid to the truly poor, but cut back significantly on transfer payments to the middle class.

I particularly enjoyed his analysis of the economists’ inability to resolve, by government program, what is called “The Mother’s Dilemma”. His resolution gives much food for thought.

I don’t think we can truly say the Depression was a “failure of capitalism”, exactly. One could argue, I believe, that it was more in the nature of a “failure of government”, which had a big hand in exacerbating the pre-Depression “bubble” and in attempting to prevent “reset” after the bubble burst, thus dragging it out for years and years. Ironically, our present situation is very similar, but nobody seems to have learned a thing from history.

 

[Ridgerunner]

All but 5 or 6 of the U.S. bishops have said the Ryan budget is not in keeping with the common good of this country. The USCCB and Catholic Charities USA are lobbying against the Ryan budget.

Source for your first assertion? So far I have seen two bishops oppose it, and have been told there is a third. But perhaps you can provide the credible and clear evidence that “all but 5 or 6” bishops oppose the Ryan plan.

Nor have I seen a direct USCCB oppositional paper, endorsed by the bishops themselves. The only thing I have seen so far is the published (though its publication was not, I understand authorized) critique of two bishops on two issues only:

1. Criticism that the Ryan plan only increases Food Stamp funding by 8% instead of 12%.
2. Criticism of removing a program that gives illegal immigrants $1,000 for each of their children.

Catholic Charities is a different thing. It has long relied on government funding for its programs. That’s a shame, because now the government is telling them they have to provide contraceptives and abortifacients. It also told them they can’t participate in anti sex trafficking programs because they won’t refer for abortions. They took the king’s shilling and now the king is telling them what to do. They have a very big problem, and it may take a very long time (possibly only a change of administration) to fix it. They are put right in a choice situation. They either go against the teachings of the Church or face defunding on which they depend.

I have to admire my own bishop, who formed a Diocesan charities program that does NOT depend on government money.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The USCCB and Catholic Charities USA are lobbying against the Ryan budget.

You do realize that neither of the sources you cite (Catholic Charities & USCCB) even mentions the Ryan plan, don’t you? Perhaps your suggesting that they do was an inadvertence or simply interpretive.

 

[rlg94086]

What is the “completely different conclusion” that you came to regarding the Compendium? In a word, I would answer “yes” to you question about the Ryan budget. All but 5 or 6 of the U.S. bishops have said the Ryan budget is not in keeping with the common good of this country. The USCCB and Catholic Charities USA are lobbying against the Ryan budget.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that the Ryan budget is evil or bad or immoral. What I am saying is that it does not stand up against what our Catholic traditions says a national budget should look like. Catholic social morality tends to like things like a national healthcare or other entitlement programs that collect taxes to help poor people pay for college, or buy a home such as we saw with the G.I. Bill of 1944.
http://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/washingtonweekly
Take a look, if you are so inclined, at the kinds of things that Catholic Charities USA (CCUSA) is advocating for in Washington. Catholic Charities works hand in hand with the USCCB.
http://www.usccb.org/about/government-relations/legislative-issues/
Also, if you are so inclined, here is a link where you can see the issue that the USCCB and Congress are in dialogue about. It does not take long to see that CCUSA the USCCB expect much more direct government action than the Ryan budget would provide for. The USCCB and CCUSA understand and expect the government to take a proactive and direct role in many, many aspects of American life that the Ryan budget would just defund and or cut. Food stamps, The Dream Act, Head Start, Pell Grants, WICK, Medicare, Medicaid, Adoption and Foster Care Services, C-CHIP, Social Security, and a number of other entitlement programs are all examples of programs that CCUSA and the USCCB support and that the Ryan budget would greatly reduce funding for or eliminate all together. This is a clear example of how different the Catholic perspective is from the Ryan budget. Granted, Paul Ryan and many of his colleagues would say that the private sector can and should take the lead here. But Catholic social morality would prefer that these kinds of services should continue (and increased) to be funded by taxes and administered in a combination of public, private and non-profit agencies.
For the most part, a Calvinist/Protestant approach would be much more in-line with the Ryan budget, which advocates for very limited government apart from military and privatizing as much as possible. I am not trying to pass any kind of judgment on the Calvinist/Protestant/Ryan approach. I am just pointing out some of the fundamental differences between a Catholic vs. Calvinist approach on how to run a country.
If you don’t agree, tell me what you thing Catholic social morality says about the meaning of the five foundational principles of:
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
I would be very interested in hearing what you think numbers 1 and 2 mean. You can find the text of the Compendium at:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...peace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html
These five foundational principles are discussed in chapter 4.

Thanks for the link, but I prefer to read the actual book. My eyes go buggy after staring at computer screens too long.

I don’t have time to go into detail, but bottom line…we are a community. We are supposed to do things for the good of the community, and goods are not meant to be hoarded by the few. Everything is from God, made for us all. What that doesn’t mean is Communism or a large, Welfare State that distributes goods evenly. How do I come to that interpretation? By reading the whole Compendium…including the critical part, when it comes to this discussion, on the role of government.

 

[Ridgerunner]

C’mon, your Democrat party card just fell out of your pocket with this.

No, you’re not passing judgment on the Ryan approach, you’re just calling it Protestant and Calvinist on a Catholic site. No judgment there. That’s not a bit better than those who call Obama a card-carrying Communist or a Muslim or foreign-born.

Don’t just do that. It’s unbecoming. If you have a problem with specifics of the Ryan plan, at least say what they are, like the two USCCB bishops did. I have not seen a single specific in anything you have said in opposition to it.

The Ryan plan doesn’t even reduce the deficit. It slows the out of control increase only. It doesn’t stop government spending. It just slows it down to be more in line with the growth of the economy.

But if you have a particular beef with a particular part of the plan, say what it is and why, exactly, you think it’s against the teachings of the Church.

 

[stevegravy]

A human who is working for any non-government entity is participating in generating wealth for their employer. In turn, the employer will remunerate the employee. By virtue of their mortal existence the working life of an employee is finite and that fixes his earnings at a finite amount. That amount represents his life’s work. Taxes coerce a portion of that individual’s life’s work for the legitimate operations of the state. So in effect, the state indentures an individual for its operations. By in large we accept that indentured servitude for legitimate state operations.

Some folks posting here want to imply that Catholic Social teaching permits indentured servitude in order to provide luxuries to classes of citizens who take from the state. I don’t think it does.

To wit cell phones to welfare recipients, food stamps being used in fast food restaurants, automobiles, televisions , air conditioners and on and on. Then there is the corporate welfare in terms of subsidies and tax abatements for new plants, sport stadiums, making ethanol, solar panels, wind farms, and buying electric cars. These are not necessary for sustaining life but are an abuse of generosity. The state has coerced money from the producing class to enhance the existence of the taking classes. All of them whether the bastard child of a welfare recipient or ADM, GE, or GM et cetera.

You want reform; I want reform, Ryan’s budget probably does not go far enough.

And for those who hate the capitalist system I ask again for examples on earth where people live blithely serene lives without want and in luxury without struggle. Hint: there ain’t one never has been since the garden of Eden. So the question is which economic system has been better at distribution of goods and services? I submit a minimally regulated market system, i.e. one that deters fraud and environmental denigration.

 

[Ridgerunner]

A human who is working for any non-government entity is participating in generating wealth for their employer. In turn, the employer will remunerate the employee. By virtue of their mortal existence the working life of an employee is finite and that fixes his earnings at a finite amount. That amount represents his life’s work. Taxes coerce a portion of that individual’s life’s work for the legitimate operations of the state. So in effect, the state indentures an individual for its operations. By in large we accept that indentured servitude for legitimate state operations.

Some folks posting here want to imply that Catholic Social teaching permits indentured servitude in order to provide luxuries to classes of citizens who take from the state. I don’t think it does.

To wit cell phones to welfare recipients, food stamps being used in fast food restaurants, automobiles, televisions , air conditioners and on and on. Then there is the corporate welfare in terms of subsidies and tax abatements for new plants, sport stadiums, making ethanol, solar panels, wind farms, and buying electric cars. These are not necessary for sustaining life but are an abuse of generosity. The state has coerced money from the producing class to enhance the existence of the taking classes. All of them whether the bastard child of a welfare recipient or ADM, GE, or GM et cetera.

You want reform; I want reform, Ryan’s budget probably does not go far enough.

And for those who hate the capitalist system I ask again for examples on earth where people live blithely serene lives without want and in luxury without struggle. Hint: there ain’t one never has been since the garden of Eden. So the question is which economic system has been better at distribution of goods and services? I submit a minimally regulated market system, i.e. one that deters fraud and environmental denigration.

I’m guessing I’m a bit to the left of you. But I also realize that each of my children and grandchildren has been imposed with a debt of $148,000 by the government; half of which was incurred in the last three years. As this generation passes, and the next, that debt grows and grows. As you say, the Ryan plan only slows down the compounding of that debt. And yet, some howl that somehow it’s unjust NOT to impose ever greater and greater debt on their shoulders.

Those kids have to at least pay the interest on that $148,000 the minute they go to work in the economy. And that’s assuming it doesn’t grow and that nobody dies; neither of which is a good assumption.

And why do we have a right to impose that on them, particularly if we do it in pursuit of some unrealistic ideological notion or political ambition? Where is the justice in that?
What Church teaching tells us that’s okay?

 

[ljpgoodwin]

C’mon, your Democrat party card just fell out of your pocket with this.

No, you’re not passing judgment on the Ryan approach, you’re just calling it Protestant and Calvinist on a Catholic site. No judgment there. That’s not a bit better than those who call Obama a card-carrying Communist or a Muslim or foreign-born.

Don’t just do that. It’s unbecoming. If you have a problem with specifics of the Ryan plan, at least say what they are, like the two USCCB bishops did. I have not seen a single specific in anything you have said in opposition to it.

The Ryan plan doesn’t even reduce the deficit. It slows the out of control increase only. It doesn’t stop government spending. It just slows it down to be more in line with the growth of the economy.

But if you have a particular beef with a particular part of the plan, say what it is and why, exactly, you think it’s against the teachings of the Church.

I really don’t think it is a bad thing to be Calvinist/Protestant. In the same way, I would have no problem with Obama being a Muslim or a Mormon. I am not a fan of Communism and its tradition of repressing the Church, but I do understand what communism is trying to accomplish economically. Communism really was trying to create a kind of economic system where everyone was treated equally. That is not such a bad thing. The problem is that it doesn’t work and it is easy for the leaders to become corrupted and power hungry…which is exactly what happened. The motivations of the Ryan budget are good and holy. I really do believe that. What I am saying is that the way the Ryan budget goes about creating a budget is very different than what we see in Catholic social teaching.
So when I say that the Ryan budget comes from a Calvinist/Protestant perspective, I don’t mean it in any negative or pejorative sense. There is nothing wrong with being a Presbyterian…it’s just different than being Catholic. Obviously, I believe that the Roman Catholic Church has something unifically distinctive to offer the world that no other religious institution can come close to. But, we are not talking about salvation here, we are talking about economics.
I think I was very clear in saying what the USCCB is looking for, which includes maintaining many entitlement programs that I listed. I also said that the Ryan budget would cut funding of these programs or cut the programs all together. Whether I am from the right or left is not the point. My point is/was to highlight the differences between the Ryan budget and what the bishops are striving for which is based on Catholic social teaching. My hope is that we as Catholic Christians can come together on these issues as a cohesive voice for economic justice based on our Catholic tradition.
I guess another way of describing the difference between the Ryan budget and what the bishops are looking for is that the Ryan budget puts a lot of emphasis on personal responsibility while Catholic social teaching puts a lot of emphasis on the community pooling its resources in an effort to help the most vulnerable. These are two different models of governance. Traditionally or historically the Protestant model which is heavily influenced by Calvinism is interested in personal morality and responsibility while traditionally Catholicism comes out of a more “communitarian” model.
The first two principles of Catholic social teaching, the common good and the universal destination of goods, are what really distinguishes Catholics from many other Christians in terms of economics. The common good is understood to be the lens through which we understand the remaining four principles of Catholic social teaching. All I am trying to do is point out this difference. It is an important difference and one worthy of much conversation. These five principles are a very difficult teaching for many holy Catholics.

But if you have a particular beef with a particular part of the plan, say what it is and why, exactly, you think it’s against the teachings of the Church.

So, my issues with the Ryan budget are the same as most of the bishops. I don’t like his plans to cut taxes and entitlement programs. The bishops seem to be saying, and I agree that the cuts in the Ryan budget are not in keeping with the first principle of Catholic social teaching, which is the common good. That is my basic issue with Mr. Ryan’s budget. The "why I don’t like it is because I like the idea of us coming together as a country to help each other out. I think the G.I Bill was good for this country because it was an example of how we can work together as a nation. I like the idea of raising taxes to pay for our deficit and entitelment programs. I ask you, is what I am saying such a bad thing? Can you at least see that my motivations are good?
So now that I have again answered your questions, I would like to hear your thoughts on the principles of the common good and the universal destination of goods as described in chapter four of the Compendium.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I really do not think it is a bad thing to be Calvinist/Protestant. In the same way, I would have no problem with Obama being a Muslim or a Mormon. I am not a fan of Communism and its tradition of repressing the Church, but I do understand what communism is trying to accomplish economically. Communism really was trying to create a kind of economic system where everyone was treated equally. That is not such a bad thing. The problem is that it doesn’t work and it is easy for the leaders to become corrupted and power hungry…which is exactly what happened. The motivations of the Ryan budget are good and holy. I really do believe that. What I am saying is that the way the Ryan budget goes about creating a budget is very different than what we see in Catholic social teaching.
So when I say that the Ryan budget comes from a Calvinist/Protestant perspective, I don’t mean it in any negative or pejorative sense. There is nothing wrong with being a Presbyterian…it’s just different than being Catholic. Obviously, I believe that the Roman Catholic Church has something unifically distinctive to offer the world that no other religious institution can come close to. But, we are not talking about salvation here, we are talking about economics.
I think I was very clear in saying what the USCCB is looking for, which includes maintaining many entitlement programs that I listed. I also said that the Ryan budget would cut funding of these programs or cut the programs all together. Whether I am from the right or left is not the point. My point is/was to highlight the differences between the Ryan budget and what the bishops are striving for which is based on Catholic social teaching. My hope is that we as Catholic Christians can come together on these issues as a cohesive voice for economic justice based on our Catholic tradition.
I guess another way of describing the difference between the Ryan budget and what the bishops are looking for is that the Ryan budget puts a lot of emphasis on personal responsibility while Catholic social teaching puts a lot of emphasis on the community pooling its resources in an effort to help the most vulnerable. These are two different models of governance. Traditionally or historically the Protestant model which is heavily influenced by Calvinism is interested in personal morality and responsibility while traditionally Catholicism comes out of a more “communitarian” model.
The first two principles of Catholic social teaching, the common good and the universal destination of goods, are what really distinguishes Catholics from many other Christians in terms of economics. The common good is understood to be the lens through which we understand the remaining four principles of Catholic social teaching. All I am trying to do is point out this difference. It is an important difference and one worthy of much conversation. These five principles are a very difficult teaching for many holy Catholics.

So, my issues with the Ryan budget are the same as most of the bishops. I don’t like his plans to cut taxes and entitlement programs. The bishops seem to be saying, and I agree that the cuts in the Ryan budget are not in keeping with the first principle of Catholic social teaching, which is the common good. That is my basic issue with Mr. Ryan’s budget. The "why I don’t like it is because I like the idea of us coming together as a country to help each other out. I think the G.I Bill was good for this country because it was an example of how we can work together as a nation. I like the idea of raising taxes to pay for our deficit and entitelment programs. I ask you, is what I am saying such a bad thing? Can you at least see that my motivations are good?
So now that I have again answered your questions, I would like to hear your thoughts on the principles of the common good and the universal destination of goods as described in chapter four of the Compendium.

But you have not answered my question. You have not named a single specific part of Ryan’s proposal to which you object, told me what you object to about it, and how it is against Church teaching.

I do not have problems with the principles in the Compendium. Never said I did. I do, however, question that the present administration follows those principles, or even thinks about them and I, like Ryan’s bishop, do not think one is justified in condemning Ryan’s proposals carte blanche. After all, each man, woman and child in this country already owes $148,000 in public debt, half of which was generated in the last three years. Do you truly deny that such a thing justifies at least slowing down the growth of the debt?

But let’s look further. How, for example, do you justify the fact that the severely disabled have to be supported by private charity in part while the administration gives money to wealthy people to buy new cars?

How does that square with Catholic teachings? I’ll help. It doesn’t.

Now, again, which specific part of the Ryan plan do you object to, and on what basis, and what teaching of the Church does it clearly violate?

 

[stevegravy]

Is this your idea of the Catholic Social teaching because without reform this is the future when we go belly up which we will.

Starving Greeks queue for food in their thousands as debt-wracked country finally forms a coalition government… but how long will it last?

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2161651/Starving-Greeks-food-thousands-politicians-finally-form-coalition-government–long-last.html#ixzz1yXplYpJl

I really don’t think it is a bad thing to be Calvinist/Protestant. In the same way, I would have no problem with Obama being a Muslim or a Mormon. I am not a fan of Communism and its tradition of repressing the Church, but I do understand what communism is trying to accomplish economically. Communism really was trying to create a kind of economic system where everyone was treated equally. That is not such a bad thing. The problem is that it doesn’t work and it is easy for the leaders to become corrupted and power hungry…which is exactly what happened. The motivations of the Ryan budget are good and holy. I really do believe that. What I am saying is that the way the Ryan budget goes about creating a budget is very different than what we see in Catholic social teaching.
So when I say that the Ryan budget comes from a Calvinist/Protestant perspective, I don’t mean it in any negative or pejorative sense. There is nothing wrong with being a Presbyterian…it’s just different than being Catholic. Obviously, I believe that the Roman Catholic Church has something unifically distinctive to offer the world that no other religious institution can come close to. But, we are not talking about salvation here, we are talking about economics.
I think I was very clear in saying what the USCCB is looking for, which includes maintaining many entitlement programs that I listed. I also said that the Ryan budget would cut funding of these programs or cut the programs all together. Whether I am from the right or left is not the point. My point is/was to highlight the differences between the Ryan budget and what the bishops are striving for which is based on Catholic social teaching. My hope is that we as Catholic Christians can come together on these issues as a cohesive voice for economic justice based on our Catholic tradition.
I guess another way of describing the difference between the Ryan budget and what the bishops are looking for is that the Ryan budget puts a lot of emphasis on personal responsibility while Catholic social teaching puts a lot of emphasis on the community pooling its resources in an effort to help the most vulnerable. These are two different models of governance. Traditionally or historically the Protestant model which is heavily influenced by Calvinism is interested in personal morality and responsibility while traditionally Catholicism comes out of a more “communitarian” model.
The first two principles of Catholic social teaching, the common good and the universal destination of goods, are what really distinguishes Catholics from many other Christians in terms of economics. The common good is understood to be the lens through which we understand the remaining four principles of Catholic social teaching. All I am trying to do is point out this difference. It is an important difference and one worthy of much conversation. These five principles are a very difficult teaching for many holy Catholics.

So, my issues with the Ryan budget are the same as most of the bishops. I don’t like his plans to cut taxes and entitlement programs. The bishops seem to be saying, and I agree that the cuts in the Ryan budget are not in keeping with the first principle of Catholic social teaching, which is the common good. That is my basic issue with Mr. Ryan’s budget. The "why I don’t like it is because I like the idea of us coming together as a country to help each other out. I think the G.I Bill was good for this country because it was an example of how we can work together as a nation. I like the idea of raising taxes to pay for our deficit and entitelment programs. I ask you, is what I am saying such a bad thing? Can you at least see that my motivations are good?
So now that I have again answered your questions, I would like to hear your thoughts on the principles of the common good and the universal destination of goods as described in chapter four of the Compendium.

 

[ljpgoodwin]

But you have not answered my question. You have not named a single specific part of Ryan’s proposal to which you object, told me what you object to about it, and how it is against Church teaching.

I do not have problems with the principles in the Compendium. Never said I did. I do, however, question that the present administration follows those principles, or even thinks about them and I, like Ryan’s bishop, do not think one is justified in condemning Ryan’s proposals carte blanche. After all, each man, woman and child in this country already owes $148,000 in public debt, half of which was generated in the last three years. Do you truly deny that such a thing justifies at least slowing down the growth of the debt?

But let’s look further. How, for example, do you justify the fact that the severely disabled have to be supported by private charity in part while the administration gives money to wealthy people to buy new cars?

How does that square with Catholic teachings? I’ll help. It doesn’t.

Now, again, which specific part of the Ryan plan do you object to, and on what basis, and what teaching of the Church does it clearly violate?

“This budget gets Washington out of the business of picking winners and losers, and restores fiscal discipline with over $5 trillion in cuts to government spending so the private sector can grow.”

The above quote is right from Ryan’s website
http://budget.house.gov/prosperity/economicfreedom.htm
I do not want to cut $5 trillion which will make cuts to entitlement programs. I don’t know how I can be any more explicit than this. I am taking words right out of Ryan’s “Path to Prosperity.”

I was hoping that we could have a discussion on how Catholic social teaching differs from what Paul Ryan and his colleagues envision. Ryan’s vision is very different than the vision of Catholic social teaching. Can we at least agree on that?