House chaplain forced out by Ryan

[Theo520]

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2018/04/30/speaker-paul-ryan-says-he-ousted-house-chaplain-over-pastoral-services-not-politics/565350002/

Ryan added, “This was not about politics or prayers, it was about pastoral services. And a number of our members felt like the pastoral services were not being adequately served, or offered.”

He was not specific about what pastoral services weren’t being offered.

The Office of the Chaplain declined an interview request.

That office’s website says the chaplain “offers a ministry of presence to all members of the House community.”

“He serves members and their families as well as congressional staff with spiritual care and counsel, prayer services, discussion events, and other activities,” the website reads.

Asked if the move was something he’d been considering for some time, Ryan said, “It’s based upon feedback I’ve been getting for quite a while from members.”

Ryan said there would be a bipartisan process to pick the next chaplain.

 

[lmachine]

As you know, Roe vs. Wade can only be undone by the Supreme Court.

And in cases spanning decades has been reaffirmed by conservative SCOTUSes.

Asked if the move was something he’d been considering for some time, Ryan said, “It’s based upon feedback I’ve been getting for quite a while from members.”

lol it really is because Republican legislators objected to him inviting a Muslim to give a prayer

 

[qui_est_ce]

I don’t know about ™liberals.
I do know that I am happy to discuss issues with sincere people, who avoid lobbing labels and generalities.

It is interesting you only call out conservatives on this.

 

[JoshuaIsLord]

In principle she shouldn’t have accepted SS payments. Stinkcat does have a point. But given a choice between survival or not, certain principles tend to get abandoned. I’m convinced Randism works only if everyone subscribes. One of her books is entitled “Capitalism-An Unknown Ideal” Emphasis on the Unknown.

I tell my Protestant Republican Relatives something similar to that and they get that “Blank Stare” like I just uttered some magic spell…

 

[JoshuaIsLord]

“Why these eight? Why now? The apparent reason has nothing to do with the heinousness of their crimes or with the presence (or absence) of mitigating behavior,” Breyer wrote. Instead, Breyer wrote, “apparently the reason the state decided to proceed with these eight executions is that the ‘use by’ date of the state’s execution drug is about to expire. In my view, that factor, when considered as a determining factor separating those who live from those who die, is close to random.”

God forbid, we should let an execution drug expire on the shelf.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Those of us who are uncompromisingly ProLife refuse to engage in such debates

Except that Dems are not. The Dems did nothing for the truly poor during the entirety of Obama’s administration, preferring to bribe well-off members of the middle class with garbage like “cash for clunkers” that deprived the poor of even the “clunkers” upon which they depend.

Don’t blame me for the Church’s position on the gravity of abortion’s evil.

 

[Ridgerunner]

How do you figure that? Obama appointed only 2 of the 9 justices on the Supreme Court. One of whom is Catholic.

If they had been prolife, the court would now have a prolife majority. But both were NARAL approved. There are pro-abortion Catholics, of course. No sense pretending there aren’t.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Those of us who are uncompromisingly ProLife refuse to engage in such debates. The terms you set up - this weighing of which issues or whose lives are deserving of dignity or protection is frankly abhorrent in the same way eugenics are abhorrent.

I’m glad you oppose the death penalty, but by your logic, by voting Republican you actually endorse it.

You must be very conflicted.

No Democrat can rightly claim to be prolife unless he never votes for Democrats.

I oppose the death penalty because Pope John Paul II did, and I had a great deal of respect for him. I did always feel that his statement about it was incomplete; that the part he did not say was “in prosperous societies, safety of others can be assured by facilities and personnel”. He was talking about the protection of others from killers and maimers. Presently, our prison facilities don’t prevent them. But we could afford prisons that would. That, I think, is what he left out. Because I believe this country could afford better security, I oppose the death penalty, not because I think the Church prohibits it.

The Church doesn’t prohibit it. No sense pretending that it does.

 

[Ridgerunner]

And in cases spanning decades has been reaffirmed by conservative SCOTUSes.

Other than Kennedy, the Repub appointees now on the Court only say “it’s the law of the land” because it is until its overturned. “Plessy vs. Ferguson” affirming segregation was the “law of the land” until it was overturned.

No, it’s the Dems on the Court who continue to make abortion a “human right”.

 

[Metis1]

You have no idea why Ryan did what he did, so it’s really just dislike of the man that you’re expressing.

Ya, you go with that as you know exactly what’s in and on my mind.

 

[Metis1]

Here we go with the Ayn Rand references.

Of course, liberal Catholics will accept most any other atheist. Just have to have the right opinions.

You’re wrong on a couple of counts, but I’m not going to explain that to you because I’m sure you know-it-all. However, maybe try this next time:
Micah 6[8] He has showed you, O man, what is good;
and what does the LORD require of you
but to do justice, and to love kindness,
and to walk humbly with your God?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Ya, you go with that as you know exactly what’s in and on my mind.

Oh, okay then. Explain to us how you know what’s in Ryan’s mind.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Justice, kindness and humility are often absent from big government and its apologists.

 

[Metis1]

I never said nor implied that I did, so I’m leaving this “discussion” with you because it is blatantly immoral to put thoughts and word’s into people’s minds and mouths instead of having the basic decency to ask them maybe what they actually do think. If you had started out with an apology, I might have reconsidered, but now I’m not at all interested in having any discussion with you on any topic at any time.

Goodbye.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I never said nor implied that I did, so I’m leaving this “discussion” with you because it is blatantly immoral to put thoughts and word’s into people’s minds and mouths instead of having the basic decency to ask them maybe what they actually do think. If you had started out with an apology, I might have reconsidered, but now I’m not at all interested in having any discussion with you on any topic at any time.

Goodbye.

Too bad you feel that way. I believed it was you to whom I was responding earlier. If not, I apologize for that mistake.

Oops! Just checked, and it was you after all. So my apology was for nothing.

You said this about Ryan:

I tend to believe his move was mainly political, probably because the chaplain did something dirty & nasty: he actually cited the Parable if the Sheep & Goats in Matthew 25 to show that the Trump tax cuts, with its sharp reductions in Medicaid, was very much the antithesis of what Jesus taught. Ryan had been warned about this inconsistency before from a Jesuit professor at Georgetown.

Pretty harsh. So you did, indeed, purport to know what was in Ryan’s mind, then doubled down on it by pronouncing Ryan uncharitable and acting contrary to what Jesus taught.

 

[Metis1]

That’s actually quite funny, and like the last person I responded to, you have me believing in something that I actually don’t believe in, plus you didn’t have even the basic decency to ask me what I believe in. But I will respond to give you an idea of just how absurd your post is.

I’m a firm believer in the encouragement and creation of more cottage industries, matched with also having greater local control versus “big government”. This is what is called a “left libertarian” approach, and my closest match on affiliation tests is Gandhi. But no, I’m not Hindu-- not that there’s anything wrong with being one.

Therefore, like the last person, I’m sick and tired of people who lash out and stereotype people like you have repeatedly done by putting thoughts and words into other people’s minds and mouths to try and score some political-correctness points, or so it appears.

Maybe go ask your priest whether stereotyping in such a way fits into Catholic moral law-- or do you really care?

Goodbye.

 

[SuperLuigi]

The people who always bring up Rand are big government liberals. I know of no one who practices or is for Randism.

 

[Metis1]

Now you are just being dishonest because “tend to believe” is not the same as putting words of certainty into people’s minds or mouths. Nice try, but a too bad it’s an utterly disingenuous one.

[I sure wish they had an ignore option here at CA-- hint-hint!]

 

[Ridgerunner]

Now you are just being dishonest because “tend to believe” is not the same as putting words of certainty into people’s minds or mouths. Nice try, but a too bad it’s an utterly disingenuous one.

[I sure wish they had an ignore option here at CA-- hint-hint!]

Pffft. Don’t need an “ignore” button. All you have to do is ignore me or Luigi or whoever you want to ignore. I can’t speak for Luigi, but I’ll do my best to ignore you too, if you wish.

 

[dvdjs]

The Church doesn’t prohibit it. No sense pretending that it does.

The position fo the Church is clear on this.

2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.”

The Church does not say that it is gravely immoral in principle, but it does say that in our practice it is.