Flipping open the new issue of Time (9/3/12), a piece by Michael Crowley begins:
Paul Ryan may be America’s most famous budget wonk.
Oh good grief.
Crowley’s point is not just to praise Ryan’s devotion to spreadsheets. No, this piece is about the influences that made Paul Ryan the wonk he is today:
But he’s more than a number cruncher. Ryan’s budget math is drawn from the political and economic theories of his many intellectual idols.
And you get what you’d expect: Ayn Rand, Jack Kemp, Friedrich Hayek. But it’s the passage about Ryan and Catholicism that is especially bizarre.
After quoting Ryan praising Saint Thomas Aquinas, Crowley writes:
Ryan may be known as a numbers man, but he’s also a devout Catholic who follows his church’s lead on social issues.
As you might expect–or fear–“social issues” means opposing abortion rights, gay marriage and supporting don’t ask, don’t tell.
Now, anyone who’s ever spent any time near a Catholic church or knows much about the teachings of Jesus Christ knows this is a pretty short list of “social issues.” Indeed, many Catholics have argued that Paul Ryan’s views on other social issues do not line up with Catholic teachings. As Melinda Hennenberger wrote at the Washington Post:
This spring, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops took the unusual step of repudiating the deep cuts envisioned in Ryan’s budget proposal as out of keeping with the teachings of Jesus. One of a series of their letters to congressional committees read in part:
“I write to urge you to resist for moral and human reasons unacceptable cuts to hunger and nutrition programs [that would] hurt hungry children, poor families, vulnerable seniors and workers who cannot find employment. These cuts are unjustified and wrong.”
This summer’s Nuns on the Bus tour (which was exactly what it sounds like) drew attention to core Catholic teachings about social justice and charity that are directly in conflict with Ryan’s budget schemes. Other scholars of the faith have done so as well.
So either these nuns and bishops don’t know which “social issues” matter to their faith, or Time magazine is taking a remarkably narrow view in order to portray Ryan’s faith in the best possible light.
But it’s not as though Time ignores Ryan’s budgets. Not at all; they find a way to argue that Ryan’s views are line with the Vatican:
But Ryan says Catholic doctrine informs more than his views on social issues. His mission to reduce spending is partly inspired, he said in April, by the Vatican. “The Holy Father, Pope Benedict, has charged that governments, communities and individuals running up high debt levels are ‘living at the expense of future generations’ and ‘living in untruth,'” he said. In which case the Ryan budget could be interpreted as a play for fairness and honesty, at least in the eyes of its maker.
Sure, it could be interpreted that way. But it’s an odd way for a journalist to examine the question–allowing Ryan to explain how he’s doing what the Pope would want. Others might disagree with Ryan’s self-assessment, not to mention his understanding of what Pope Benedict would think. Here’s Daniel Maguire, professor of moral theological ethics at Marquette University:
Just last year, in October 2011, Pope Benedict’s Pontifical Council on Justice and Peace gave all the help you need. They summed up centuries of “Catholic social teaching” in a single document and applied it to today’s tottering global economy. When asked about the document, you equivocated about whether you had read it. Clearly, from your recent utterances you either did not read it or you read it and trashed it. Small wonder. It would give Ayn Rand a stroke. Jesuit Thomas Reese said the document is “closer to the view of Occupy Wall Street that anyone in the U.S. Congress.”
“And again I say unto you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.” Those are words attributed to Jesus. He did not say much about giving the wealthy a massive tax cut, paid for by cutting aid to the needy. But perhaps Time could give Ryan space to explain how a budget that does just that is just what Jesus would have done.
I wouldn’t consider Benedict much of an advocate for following the teachings of Jesus – or his ghostwriters – but the point’s taken.
If he were alive today – assuming he ever was – something tells me that he wouldn’t be on the Sunday talk shows pimping this money changer’s wet dream.
And how many times do you think he would have been pepper sprayed, or perhaps had the literally holy shit beat out of him?
The boy’s had his character defamed by bastards like Ryan for the last couple of millenia. Even Der Fuhrer got in on the act.
He really needs a goddamn good civil attorney, don’t you think?
I think Mr. Hart did a good job to show that the Catholic Church is equally opposed to US social agendas promoted by both the extreme left and the extreme right. I also think Mr. Doug Latimer’s vituperative comments are cheap and vulgar and he could benefit from a lesson in manners.
When asked how to identify his followers, Jesus gave a simple list: “do they heal the sick, do they raise the dead?” The rest of it is doctrine plastered together over the millennia by lesser minds. Congressman Ryan does share the some of the current Vatican viewpoint, but, like most Catholics, ignores the inconvenient stuff. Close enough, right?
As for the commenter above, I can only ask, what extreme left? I have lived in this country for over 25 years and I have yet to detect one. It is simply a Republican talking point to distract from their own side trip to Crazytown.
Religion is the all-purpose stalking horse for the conservative right-wingers. Besides the universal eternal life promise of religion that virtually everyone likes, there are the practical political aspects, whereby they can use it as a distraction from all that science/reality stuff, as a one-sided moral arbiter (God/Jesus/Jaweh/Mohammed/etc always agreeing with THEM, of course), as a vote-getter (unfortunately), and of course an argument-ender/self-righteousness guarantor to condemn the heathen non-believers, smear your political opponents, and pave the way for the dehumanization of ‘the other’, enabling them to subsequently be robbed/imprisoned/slaughtered. There’s some small number that actually BELIEVE (as in talk + action) in religious teachings and act accordingly, but that’s an insignificant percentage — the rest just wear it’s vestments for the above described effects.
Side note: I for one like 98% Doug Latimer’s comments. However, above he did forget to mention that Jesus is really busy nowadays helping all those athletes win the big game after coming from behind. I’ve always wondered how DOES he choose sides? What criteria is used?
Why is there never any mention of Catholic politicians ignoring the lead of their church on social issues regarding the poor and the meek?
Paul Ryan has a deep faith in his ability to wave a crucifix in front of a reactionary crowd of Catholics and have them follow his lead to a new murderous Crusade to kill those whom God did not smile down upon and gift with rich parents, no health problems, and bonuses such as given out to the likes of Goldman Sachs’ Blankfein who said he’s merely a banker “doing god’s work.”
I find the vociferating torrents of vituperous abuse heaped on Doug Latimer to be without just cause.
This issuer of such critiques will refrain from bringing his petty concerns to my attention in the future.
Within an ongoing blasphemous facade, these traitors of the Beatitudes will stop at nothing to protect every Enronesqued “den of thieves.”
Reflections: Rich Passages Through Needles
https://seaclearly.wordpress.com/2012/08/05/reflections-rich-passages-through-needles/
Jesus lived in a different time. There was no mass media. There was just preaching and sitting around thinking. Since this blog is about holding modern journalists accountable, not the Church, I would start from a different premise. Like Karl Kraus said, wars are started when diplomats lie to the newspapers then believe what they read.:
The Pope generally makes gentle criticism of the US but usually gives support to US government interests. I suppose since we control access to where the Church gets to go, he has to bet on the winning team. A journalist faces the same pressure. Bishops and priests aside, having your values aligned with the Pope is a closed loop, it’s talking to yourself, admiring your reflection.
Glenn, once again, thank you kindly for your comradeship.
I’m not sure Jess is clear on what I was trying to say, and took it as a disparagement of Jesus.
Aside from his unequivocal stand against violence, I’m copasetic with pretty much everything he was purported to have said. I believe we have a right to defend ourselves and others through the use of principled and disciplined force as a last resort, and his teachings eschew that alternative, admonishing us to “turn the other cheek”.
But, if you recall, he did some righteous rod swinging one day in the temple. So the guy wasn’t Mr. Equanimity 24/7, was he?
But it may be that Jess can’t separate a hypocritical church hierarchy – and that’s Superfluity Central, in spades – from the teachings of someone who challenged the religious and political powers of his time, and paid a grim price for it.
And he has animus toward anyone who can.
I can’t say. Perhaps he’s willing to.
And Eddie, much obliged, but what’s the two percent you’re less than enamored with? It is due to substance, style or some amalgamation of the two?
As to your question, isn’t it interesting that no one ever thanks the Lord for the losses?
Surely, if all is according to His will, defeat should be seen as a gift, something that humbles us, and inspires us to greater effort.
Ever hear a postgame prayer along those lines?
I’m afraid when it comes to sports, the dominant paradigm is encapsulated in the words of St. Vincent of Green Bay …
Winning isn’t everything
It’s the only thing.
Your flag decal may not get you into heaven anymore
But maybe a Super Bowl ring does?
DL –
Re: the 2% I mentioned. I vaguely recall some minor difference I had with something you wrote but it doesn’t even stick in my mind. It’s really more of kind of a disclaimer/coverall – – – I don’t know of anyone whom I agree with 100% (that includes my departed parents, favorite writers/pundits, friends, etc).
And you don’t have to tell me about St. Vincent of Green Bay – – – I’m a lifelong resident of cheddar-head-land and heard ALL about him ALL too often back in the 60’s — at least until he went to Washington DC team !
Eddie, I’m a relatively recent transplant to the land of fish fries and “deer management”, but I’m originally from the great and sovereign state of Miss’ssippi, so you know I’m familiar with the ‘tude, and at one point was something more than a novitiate of the religion.
I’m now an apostate, in the main, but old habits die hard, and I still keep up to some degree with both college and pro ball, fully cognizant of the contradictions inherent.
I do think sports in general theoretically have some useful lessons to relate – e.g., in the areas of effort and teamwork – but the world would be a better place if this most militaristic of them had died out a century ago, were it not for the intervention of Teddy Roosevelt, who may have seen the value in this approximation of war in a culture structured to promote imperialism.
Just a theory.
And thanks for clarifying your disclaimer. It’s eminently reasonable.
I never have a problem with disagreement.
I have an immense problem with ad hominem hurling snarkmeisters.
If Christ (had actually existed and) were alive today, he would bawling a river of tears over the morons and idiots like Ryan who think being humble means being an asshole to the people below you.
Everyone seems to forget that Heysus de Christo of old (stories) was an ass kicking revolutionary who put “paid to the balance” on the greed of the overlords of the time.
Ryan, humble? Please…
We can’t have assisted suicide because only God gets to decide when life ends, but Ryan and his gang get to decide when life begins.
Sin of Pride, worst of the Deadlies.
Lol,
that’s what make makes religion fun; it is whatever you want it to be!
When this article began I read the line about Ryans tie to Catholicism as being bizarre and my brain switched off ,and truthfully it was hard to read more.Let me be blunt.Im sick to death of the Dem policy of personal attack.That includes throwing racism charges about for anything their little minds can think off(while on their side 99% of blacks say they will vote Obama).
That includes trying to throw suspicion due to a mans religious beliefs.So lets be frank.I will remind you what country you are in and ask you to stick to the subject ,and refrain from talk of any mans faith.It is a baiting ,and spurious argument.You are trying to impune a man ,and those days are past.This election will be about the important issues of our day.Economic issues that will tell if we will have a country to come home to.Weather or not Bob Carol ,Ted and Alice can marry in any mix they want…or weather or not a man is for, or against abortion is so far down the list as to be laughable.We will talk about the geopolitical goals moving into the future.Your attempts to drag the dialogue into the gutter is expected.It wont work this time
Arian heresy is cruel and its murdering the faithful human family of God and Jesus Christ’s true church.