Rep. Paul Ryan now supports gay adoption

  • Thread starter Thread starter oldcelt
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Lion_IRC said:
Gay “dads” - don’t forget that breast milk is scientifically proven to be in the child’s best interests.
Click to expand...
Science doesn’t matter to social activists in many instances. :rolleyes:
 
SuperLuigi said:
In what I see as an increasingly obvious zeal to post these, oldcelt, I will once again point out that conservatives are well aware of the lines of progressive values in the republican party. 😉
Click to expand...
You’re right…starting what…one thread in the past several weeks… is overly zealous on my part. Has made for some interesting conversation though.
 
oldcelt said:
You’re right…starting what**…one thread in the past several weeks**… is overly zealous on my part. Has made for some interesting conversation though.
Click to expand...
You need to slooooow down, brother. 😛 😃
 
Since he has changed his opinion regarding gay adoption, isn’t that grounds for automatic Excommunication? Real Catholics are not allowed to have that opinion.
 
Reminds me of this:
Toe: What about the limits of theology, or the conflicts that seem to arise between the freedom of theologians and the teaching of the Church?
Click to expand...
Rahner: “Obviously theology needs an area of freedom. No doubt theology’s free space was often unduly restricted in the years” before the Second Vatican Council. "Naturally, there are limits to its range of freedom wherever theology denies head-on and decisively a defined truth of Church faith."16 "…Unlike Hans Küng and such people, I never really wanted to do a theology that called into question the teaching authority of the Church where it bound me unconditionally."17
Click to expand...
"A conservative tendency is certainly perceptible in Rome. That, however, is probably often a result of the fact that some Catholic theologians defend positions that are objectively incompatible with the teachings of the magisterium. Dangers for the continued handing on of the content of the Catholic faith do exist, dangers which are, in part, provoked by so-called progressive Catholic theologians."18 "I am a Catholic theologian who attempts an absolute loyalty to the magisterium of the Church to rethink Catholic teaching."19
Click to expand...
Toe: Taking for granted the Church’s teaching of the hierarchy of truth, are there some areas in which your own theology exercises its freedom to disagree with the opinions of Church authority?
Click to expand...
Rahner: This is a difficult question. I can point to two areas. One has to do with the question of birth control. “On the one hand,… I am obliged to attach great importance to the position of the highest authority in the Catholic Church presented” in the birth control encyclical. “On the other hand, I also have the right and the duty not to consider such a position simply and absolutely the last word, but to give it more thought and eventually to reach my own personal position, assumed on my own responsibility.” Without saying “that this is my solid, my clear, my unequivocal conviction,” "I would rather think that the approval of certain forms of contraceptives "would not conflict with the essential Catholic conception of sexuality."20
Click to expand...
Toe: What do you think about the question of the ordination of women?
Click to expand...
Rahner: "When the Vatican declaration against the ordination of women (even in the future) came out a few years back, I published an article saying that it failed to convince me. (Of course, it was not an infallible definition). Rome is digging in its heels, it seems to me, against the development that one ought to admit calmly might not be a bad thing."21
Click to expand...
Nothing in that that is per se wrong, but it implies ideas that aren’t acceptable. Similar to his statements about how the Magisterium was “wrong” about liberal democracy and reading the Bible. How people commonly interpreted those statements could indeed be considered wrong (e.g religious freedom not allowed), but per se the Magisterium’s statements are perfectly correct; the historical setting they were produced in made them appear more opposed to certain ideas than what was actually stated. For reasons like these Archbishop Angelo Amato said that Rahner was an orthodox theologian, albeit ambiguous.

I think this Ryan situation is similar. Nothing per se that is wrong with what he said, but considering the circumstances it implies a lot that is wrong.
 
Personanongrata said:
Since he has changed his opinion regarding gay adoption, isn’t that grounds for automatic Excommunication? Real Catholics are not allowed to have that opinion.
Click to expand...
Oh? Perhaps you can cite us to where the Church teaches that no chaste person with same sex attraction who does not push or exhibit homosexuality, can be allowed to adopt a needy child. I have never seen that.

Isn’t the problem one of scandal in the usual “homosexual adoption”? Perhaps molestation potential? But if the adopting person is in no way causing scandal and does not molest?

I’m not persuaded yet that Ryan, if you look at what he actually said, is saying anything contrary to any teaching of the Church. He said “a person”. Perhaps I can be convinced that he meant some openly homosexual “couple” or other scandalous person. But I’m not yet.
 
sojo said:
It doesn’t just “appear” that republicans are looking to distance themselves from women’s issues regarding abortion, rape, birth control, but there has been outspoken call from a variety of leaders literally begging their cohorts to drop all social issues, most particularly anything “woman related” (talk about abortion, rape, contraception) as well as immigration, anything to do with Hispanics, and gay rights. There is no secret that some Republican leadership is actively trying to move the party out of the entire realm of social issues and appeasing the religious right and back into a strictly financial conservative party. Sounds like Ryan is just joining Jindal, Gingrich and others in this push for electability.
Click to expand...
Personally, I think “Rockefeller Republicanism” is still dead. Certainly some of them think they can somehow win elections if they straddle moral positions. Personally, I doubt they can. I have seen it opined (whether right or wrong) that it wasn’t a failure of liberalism that caused Romney’s defeat, but a failure of conservatism. Had as many conservatives shown up at the polls as did for Bush, Romney would have won. If that’s true, and the numbers some cited seem to show it, Blacks, Hispanics and women didn’t win the election for Obama, conservatives did.

I suspect the same is true of the “womens’ issues” strategy some seem to have. Married women voted Republican. It was the single women who voted Dem. Does anybody really think that edging closer to a pro-abortion view is actually going to win over women who are living lives (perhaps) of unchastity and lack of security?

Same with Hispanics. I think Rubio, et al, are entirely misguided in believing Hispanics are suddenly going to vote against social programs from which they benefit just because somebody wants to grant amnesty to illegals. There are plenty of Hispanics who don’t support amnesty either.

I have long felt that at some point “immigration reform” would founder due to the demands “political correctness” will place on it. How does one bless the residence of a Hispanic and not that of a Tsnarnaev? If the American public perceives that “immigration reform” means more Tsarnaevs, it will demand no immigration at all, and that perception might be building some strength as we write here. Perhaps not yet, but it’s probably inevitable at some point in time. Oddly enough Bush’s de facto “Hispanic preference through neglect of doing anything at all” might have been the only “immigration reform” course open to any politician that was also reasonably acceptable to the public.
 
I am not fully understanding of what Ryan said and I realize that human beings are not perfect, won’t always have our exact point of view but God asks us to be charitable. This is not the clearest issue to understand.

I do understand how people can say “well, would you want that baby to be aborted or have parents such as gay parents.”
 
Ryan with his focus on Randian individualism is clearly stating that any individual–assuming no legal barriers–should have the right to adopt and raise children. This is contrary to what the church teaches where only a married couple may adopt and raise children. This is the whole problem with the GOP and Democrat parties in that individual rights are held above and superior to rights of the family unit.
 
Ryan, Bachmann, Allen West, Ted Cruz, these are very brave people, check out what Melissa Harris Perry wrote about Ryan, it is unprintable, the left savages these moral people and I will wait for full coverage of this before passing judgment, it’s not like he drove a car off of a bridge at Chappaquidick.
 
ProVobis said:
His Ayn Randism is showing IMO./QUOTEY

yep. I always worry about ayn rand followers. They may be “conservative” but ayn rand herself wasn’t a very moral person and was all about individualism. Eventually others like Ryan will do the same
Click to expand...
 
I am not fully understanding of what Ryan said and I realize that human beings are not perfect
Click to expand...
The same can be said for any politician, democrat or GOP. It is like you’re changing your tune so to speak because he is a good “conservative”. At least be consistant and condemn his anti-catholic position.
 
cnn.com/2012/08/14/opinion/weiss-ryan-rand/index.html
Click to expand...
Paul Ryan says that he read her books as a youth but was not influenced by her. In April, he gave an interview to National Review in which he repudiated Rand entirely. In the interview, he called reports of his adherence to Rand’s views an “urban legend” and said that he was more deeply influenced by his Roman Catholic faith and by Thomas Aquinas.
Click to expand...
Let’s see if the Church rebukes what Paul Ryan says, then, let’s judge him otherwise, sounds like just an excuse to say negative things about him.
 
Tony_Micelli said:
The same can be said for any politician, democrat or GOP. It is like you’re changing your tune so to speak because he is a good “conservative”. At least be consistant and condemn his anti-catholic position.
Click to expand...
And when he is condemned from the Church, maybe we can think about it. Gee, he doesn’t support infanticide and abortion. No, God reminds us none of us are perfect. You judge others, I don’t know if God asks us too. Also, it’s a bit objectionable that you are trying to lump together a party that has in its platform intrinsic evils.
 
BroomWagon said:
Let’s see if the Church rebukes what Paul Ryan says, then, let’s judge him otherwise, sounds like just an excuse to say negative things about him.
Click to expand...
From the article you linked:
But that’s not the way he was talking in 2005, when he gave a speech to the Atlas Society, a group dedicated to promoting Rand’s beliefs.
Click to expand...
In that speech, Ryan said, “I grew up reading Ayn Rand and it taught me quite a bit about who I am and what my value systems are and what my beliefs are. It’s inspired me so much that it’s required reading in my office for all my interns and my staff.”
Click to expand...
He went on to say that “the reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand. And the fight we are in here, make no mistake about it, is a fight of individualism versus collectivism.”
Click to expand...
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
From the article you linked:
Click to expand...
Very good, I posted the whole article to read:

From the article I just posted!!!

Wisconsin bishop praises Paul Ryan, discusses intrinsic evils, prudential judgments
Making clear that he was endorsing no candidate,** Bishop Robert Morlino of Madison praised vice presidential contender Paul Ryan as a Catholic who “is very careful to fashion and form his conclusions in accord with the principles” of Catholic social doctrine.**
Click to expand...
“It was no shock at all for me to learn that our diocesan native son, Paul Ryan, had been chosen to be a candidate for the Vice Presidency of the United States,” Bishop Morlino wrote in an August 16 diocesan newspaper column. “I am proud of his accomplishments as a native son, and a brother in the faith, and my prayers go with him and especially with his family as they endure the unbelievable demands of a presidential campaign here in the United States.”
Click to expand...
And the article continues.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Are you saying the bishop supports gay adoptions?
Click to expand...
I don’t believe there is any final word on Paul Ryan’s views.

Nor has the Holy Wisconsin Bishop come out and criticized Representative Ryan as far as we know. I will accept his interpretation.
“Thus, it is not up to me or any bishop or priest to approve of Congressman Ryan’s specific budget prescription to address the best means we spoke of,” Bishop Morlino added. “Where intrinsic evils are not involved, specific policy choices and political strategies are the province of Catholic lay mission. But, as I’ve said,** Vice Presidential Candidate Ryan is aware of Catholic Social Teaching and is very careful to fashion and form his conclusions in accord with the principles mentioned above. Of that I have no doubt.** (I mention this matter in obedience to Church Law regarding one’s right to a good reputation.)”****
Click to expand...
catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=15264
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top