Bishop criticizes USCCB committee’s reaction to Ryan budget

[KSU]

Originally Posted by Red Wolf

Blessed Pope John Paul II's encyclical 100 years (after Pope Leo XIII's social justice encyclical) condemns the welfare state, largely for the deficits. Right of private property and the government's responsibility to maintain a sound currency feature in it. Our Dominicans are running a review of all the social justice encyclicals, from Pope Leo XIII on, in their news letter. Congressman Ryan's budget seems to be based largely on Blessed Pope John Paul II's encyclical.

That seems to mean nothing to some of our politically amaturish clergy, which currently is held in low esteem by the American people. I hope word does not spread that despite our country's shockingly precarious fiscal situation* the leaders of our religious and clergy (which people mistakenly perceive as the Catholic Church) want even more tax and spending. If however that does become common knowledge, the Catholic Church in America will lose most of the credibility it has left and will become the irrelevancy it is in Europe. Forget tax exemptions and other privileges religion currently enjoys in law and tradition.

* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EW5Id...ature=youtu.be

[Michael Mayo]

Yet Pope Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum:

“[W]hen there is question of defending the rights of individuals, the poor and badly off have a claim to especial consideration. The richer class have many ways of shielding themselves, and stand less in need of help from the State; whereas the mass of the poor have no resources of their own to fall back upon, and must chiefly depend upon the assistance of the State. And it is for this reason that wage-earners, since they mostly belong in the mass of the needy, should be specially cared for and protected by the government. ”

[gnjsdad]

Originally Posted by Red Wolf

Congressman Ryan's budget seems to be based largely on Blessed Pope John Paul II's encyclical.

Really? I'd like to know how Ryan's budget proposals square with the infallible doctrine of the preferential option for the poor.

Also, this poster referenced an invaluable quote from Rerum Novarum.

Originally Posted by Michael Mayo

Yet Pope Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum:

“[W]hen there is question of defending the rights of individuals, the poor and badly off have a claim to especial consideration. The richer class have many ways of shielding themselves, and stand less in need of help from the State; whereas the mass of the poor have no resources of their own to fall back upon, and must chiefly depend upon the assistance of the State. And it is for this reason that wage-earners, since they mostly belong in the mass of the needy, should be specially cared for and protected by the government. ”

Conservative and libertatian supporters of the Ryan budget plan talk about the doctrine of subsidiarity as if there were no other doctrine in Catholic social thought. Subsidiarity doesn't work apart from the other tenets of Catholic social doctrine. If lower levels of society are incapable of meeting the needs of the poor, then the higher levels must do so. Ryan's budget plans appear designed to cut off necessary benefits for great numbers of people when state and municipal and private charities are unable to assume the burden. That's not in line with Pope John Paul's thought, as Pope John Paul II elevated to infallible doctrine the positions first enunciated in Rerum Novarum.

[Michael Mayo]

Originally Posted by Red Wolf

Congressman Ryan's budget seems to be based largely on Blessed Pope John Paul II's encyclical.

I certainly doubt it. It has been a long time since I read it but please join me.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/jo...-annus_en.html


The State must contribute to the achievement of these goals both directly and indirectly. Indirectly and according to the principle of subsidiarity, by creating favourable conditions for the free exercise of economic activity, which will lead to abundant opportunities for employment and sources of wealth. Directly and according to the principle of solidarity, by defending the weakest, by placing certain limits on the autonomy of the parties who determine working conditions, and by ensuring in every case the necessary minimum support for the unemployed worker.

[KSU]

The passage below is the Church's constant reminder when studying its teaching on social justice. The Left never quotes it because it undermines the Left's misrepresentation (often innocently, but sometimes not) of the Church's "social doctrine":

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

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

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

Thanks be to God for the 26 bishops like Boyea and Naumann. There is no doubt that they have allies among the other bishops who will vote for a more balanced USCCB position when the time comes. The question is, are there enough bishops to win the day for a clearly non-partisan, Roman Catholic statement--if there must be a statement at all.

[Michael Mayo]

Originally Posted by KSU

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

.

Let us look at that quote in context.

What "analysis"?

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


as in:

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


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

Who's office is it then, to make a judgement as to the proper application of Leo's principles if not the bishops in union with the Pope?

[Ridgerunner]

Originally Posted by Michael Mayo

Who's office is it then, to make a judgement as to the proper application of Leo's principles if not the bishops in union with the Pope?

Let's not forget, either, that the USCCB positions are not necessarily those of "the bishops". To my understanding, only two bishops criticized the Ryan Plan, and on two bases only. They criticized:
1. Reducing the rate of INCREASE in food stamps from 12% to 8% for this year.
2. Eliminating the tax credit (check) of $1,000 per child to illegal aliens.

[rlg94086]

Originally Posted by Michael Mayo

Who's office is it then, to make a judgement as to the proper application of Leo's principles if not the bishops in union with the Pope?

Originally Posted by Ridgerunner

Let's not forget, either, that the USCCB positions are not necessarily those of "the bishops". To my understanding, only two bishops criticized the Ryan Plan.

And, two bishops who criticized those two bishops' comments through the USCCB are cited in the original post of this thread. I'm assuming Michael Mayo would agree that those bishops are also part of the office to "make a judgement as to the proper application of Leo's principles," yes?

[Ridgerunner]

Originally Posted by rlg94086

And, two bishops who criticized those two bishops' comments through the USCCB are cited in the original post of this thread. I'm assuming Michael Mayo would agree that those bishops are also part of the office to "make a judgement as to the proper application of Leo's principles," yes?

Seems so to me, which is a pretty good indicator that it's all a matter of prudential judgment.

[rlg94086]

Originally Posted by Ridgerunner

Seems so to me, which is a pretty good indicator that it's all a matter of prudential judgment.

[Michael Mayo]

Originally Posted by rlg94086

And, two bishops who criticized those two bishops' comments through the USCCB are cited in the original post of this thread. I'm assuming Michael Mayo would agree that those bishops are also part of the office to "make a judgement as to the proper application of Leo's principles," yes?

Yes. It will be interesting to see their message entitled, Catholic Reflections on Work, Poverty and a Broken Economy, who signs and who dissents.

[rlg94086]

Originally Posted by Michael Mayo

Yes. It will be interesting to see their message entitled, Catholic Reflections on Work, Poverty and a Broken Economy, who signs and who dissents.

Interesting to see who signs and dissents? Why? Are some bishops more genuinely Catholic than others?

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

We get to argue on the balance of solidarity and subsidiarity, quote encyclicals and other Church documents in the defense of our positions, etc. But, it still comes down to prudential judgement, when they are matters for prudential judgement, whether that judgement is made by a bishop or a layperson.

[Michael Mayo]

Originally Posted by rlg94086

Interesting to see who signs and dissents? Why? Are some bishops more genuinely Catholic than others?

Not at all. I am confident of the genuine Catholicity of each and every one of them no matter how liberal or conservative others here may view them. And I do hope they can model for us constructive charitable dialogue.

[Michael Mayo]

Originally Posted by Red Wolf

Blessed Pope John Paul II's encyclical 100 years (after Pope Leo XIII's social justice encyclical) condemns the welfare state, largely for the deficits. Right of private property and the government's responsibility to maintain a sound currency feature in it. Our Dominicans are running a review of all the social justice encyclicals, from Pope Leo XIII on, in their news letter.

That is a rather unbalanced synopsis. One would never guess it also says this:


10. Another important aspect, which has many applications to our own day, is the concept of the relationship between the State and its citizens. Rerum novarum criticizes two social and economic systems: socialism and liberalism. The opening section, in which the right to private property is reaffirmed, is devoted to socialism. Liberalism is not the subject of a special section, but it is worth noting that criticisms of it are raised in the treatment of the duties of the State. The State cannot limit itself to "favouring one portion of the citizens", namely the rich and prosperous, nor can it "neglect the other", which clearly represents the majority of society. Otherwise, there would be a violation of that law of justice which ordains that every person should receive his due. "When there is question of defending the rights of individuals, the defenceless and the poor have a claim to special consideration. The richer class has many ways of shielding itself, and stands less in need of help from the State; whereas the mass of the poor have no resources of their own to fall back on, and must chiefly depend on the assistance of the State. It is for this reason that wage-earners, since they mostly belong to the latter class, should be specially cared for and protected by the Government".

These passages are relevant today, especially in the face of the new forms of poverty in the world, and also because they are affirmations which do not depend on a specific notion of the State or on a particular political theory. Leo XIII is repeating an elementary principle of sound political organization, namely, the more that individuals are defenceless within a given society, the more they require the care and concern of others, and in particular the intervention of governmental authority.

and this:

11. Re-reading the Encyclical in the light of contemporary realities enables us to appreciate the Church's constant concern for and dedication to categories of people who are especially beloved to the Lord Jesus. The content of the text is an excellent testimony to the continuity within the Church of the so-called "preferential option for the poor", an option which I defined as a "special form of primacy in the exercise of Christian charity". Pope Leo's Encyclical on the "condition of the workers" is thus an Encyclical on the poor and on the terrible conditions to which the new and often violent process of industrialization had reduced great multitudes of people. Today, in many parts of the world, similar processes of economic, social and political transformation are creating the same evils.

Congressman Ryan's budget seems to be based largely on Blessed Pope John Paul II's encyclical.

I would like to see some connections made between Ryan's budget and Centesimus Annus. I don't mean that in a snarky way. I'm here to learn.

[KSU]

Passage from an interview with Paul Ryan:

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

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

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

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

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

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