A married friend of mine is loaded with debt. His home is double-mortgaged. His wallet is full of credit cards, all of which carry substantial balances.
My friend claims not to enjoy racking up debt. He doesn't seem to think he has a choice. He pays the tuition of his college-aged children, and he supports his family in a comfortable lifestyle. His children take private art and music lessons, and he pays the rent of his unemployed nephew. But as much as he desires to love his children, he isn't doing them any favors.
Eventually, for my friend, the debts will come due. When they do, his children will be in a difficult place. Never having sacrificed, they haven’t built or saved money or prepared for financial independence. My friend’s imprudence will cripple no one more severely than his children.
My friend’s fatherhood reminds me of the protagonist of Mario Puzo’s The Godfather. “I have,” explains Don Corleone, “a sentimental weakness for my children, and I spoil them.” Governing by sentimental affection can impede the hard choices required by compassion — by real love.
Knowing what is coming, few would say that my friend is acting with compassion or with a Christian sense of responsibility.
Christian responsibility, expressed sometimes as stewardship, is the practice of making prudent and difficult judgments. It is the recognition that we cannot give everything we wish to, we cannot spend what we do not have, and we cannot borrow what we can’t repay.
Christian stewardship cares for the poor by prudently planning and responsibly spending what is in the realm of the possible, while recognizing the limitations of our resources. St. Augustine reflected that prudent stewardship is “love choosing wisely between the things that help and those that hinder.”
Responsibility is a virtue, and it’s also the moral obligation of sensible adults. Responsibility is also the moral obligation of governments. In his 2010 book Light of the World, Pope Benedict XVI chastised Western governments for “living at the expense of future generations.” With regard to debt, he said, “we are living in untruth.”
Republican candidate Mitt Romney has selected Congressman Paul Ryan to be his running mate. Ryan is a Catholic and a fiscal conservative. Over the past few months, he has been the subject of considerable criticism for his political views. His fiscal perspective has been roundly condemned as being somehow anti-Catholic, even by a few American bishops. At the core of this charge is the idea that Ryan is compassionless to the poor.
Ryan’s fiscal plans would dramatically cut some programs for the materially poor. This would seriously impact many Americans. But Ryan claims that his plans are rooted in the Christian sense of responsibility. In looking to the future, Ryan claims, his concern is for the long-term care of America’s poor, which requires sacrifice in the present.
I am not a policy expert. I do not know whether Paul Ryan’s fiscal plans are the right plans for America’s present or her future. I cannot, nor would I, endorse him or any other candidate. But claims that Paul Ryan’s plans run deeply counter to Catholic social teaching are unfounded and unreasonable. Some criticisms are so insidious that one wonders whether the critics have actually read Ryan’s plans.
For Catholics, there are certain social issues on which the answers are firm and absolute. Catholics must recognize the dignity of the unborn and the injustice of legalized killing. Catholics must recognize the dignity of human sexuality and the immutability of marriage between man and woman. Catholics must recognize the preferential option, the Lord’s love, for the poor. These issues must inform the decisions Catholic leaders make in proposing or supporting policy.
Beyond these non-negotiable principles, there is room for considerable debate on particular policy choices or initiatives. But a primary element of the debate for Catholics and for all reasonable adults must be the long-term consequences of our choices. St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica insists that strategic decisions take place in light of our end or purpose and the means to get there, rather than the dictates of immediate sentimental inclinations. The just means, he says, include the principles of solidarity and subsidiarity, that is, authentic fraternity with the poor and real respect for the family and the local community.
We should have a serious debate about whether Paul Ryan’s plans and those of his political opponents serve our national purpose. We should discuss seriously whether they utilize just means. But we should also discuss whether his plans and those of his opponents prudently steward the resources we have.
Paul Ryan is concerned that America will soon be bankrupt, and so we must make hard choices. If he is right and we ignore the message because the consequences seem compassionless, our sentimental affections may cripple the ones our Lord loves the most, our children.
This column is courtesy of Catholic News Agency.
Archbishop Samuel Aquila is the archbishop of Denver.
John Zmirak: We Are All Islamists Now
SDG: Decision 2012: Hitting Bottom? A Moment of Clarity
Comments
Post a Comment
I agree with the need for responsible fiscal planning - something which often seems lacking in Democratic budget plans. But part and parcel of Rep. Ryan’s budget plan calls for tax cuts for those making more than $250,000.00 per year, and that the cost of those cuts should be paid by reducing healthcare for the elderly, and in cuts in aid programs for the poor, AND by INCREASING the taxes paid by the poor and middle class.
Pep. Ryan clearly has some grounding in Catholic social teaching, but his public policy seems to be more grounded in GOP talking points than in Rerum Novarum or Mater et Magistra.
The Archbishop is claiming neutrality but promoting Ryan in subtle ways. Ryan may be the one to vote for but Bishops in these pages are doing a weird dance away from details of Ryan’s plan.
David Stockman, a conservative from the Reagan years, wrote last week that Ryan is not cutting the very affluent on social security and medicare but is cutting the very vulnerable on Medicaid besides reducing the marginal tax rate on the rich….so that they hire more. They will not hire more based on their personal income tax; they’ll hire more when the health care costs per worker is clarified. CEO’s say that everyday on the stock market tv program. Cutting the marginal tax rate is about nurturing political donations from the rich. Ryan voted for the auto bail out and the Wall St. bailout and sought stimulous funds for his state while denouncing such funds another time. Ryan may very well be the one to vote for but pro Ryan Bishops seem uniform in not detailing who he is in his actual past and proposed actions. The Bishops need him for freedom reasons on the insurance question. Some of them are promoting him subtly without really reading his details past and future because they are desperate on the freedom/ insurance issue because they don’t know if Dolan and the pro bono lawyers are going to win in the insurance area. Cutting back on medicaid for the elderly will make Catholic families smaller because young Catholics will have to pay for long term health care insurance yearly besides some of them paying more at work for health care itself. Throw in cost of Catholic schools etc. and parish donations and saving for a home….and we’ll become one child China because that’s all the young can afford….in the new Ryan world of cutting the safety net not for banks and GM and the rich…but for those who didn’t marry wealth like Ryan did. Vote for Ryan but let’s not beatify him so that we can vote for him and feel perfect while doing so. He’s better than Obama. Vlad the Impaler was better than Obama.
The point of the archbishop is that the “claims that Paul Ryan’s plans run deeply counter to Catholic social teaching are unfounded and unreasonable”!!! As a matter of fact, Paul’s ideas promote a socially just stewardship that aligns with St. John Chrysotom’s preacing (On Living Simply):
“SHOULD we look to kings and princes to put right the inequalities between rich and poor? Should we require soldiers to come and seize the rich person’s gold and distribute it among his destitute neighbors? Should we beg the emperor to impose a tax on the rich so great that it reduces them to the level of the poor and then to share the proceeds of that tax among everyone?
Equality imposed by force would achieve nothing, and do much harm. Those who combined both cruel hearts and sharp minds would soon find ways of making themselves rich again. Worse still, the rich whose gold was taken away would feel bitter and resentful; while the poor who received the gold from the hands of soldiers would feel no gratitude, because no generosity would have prompted the gift.
Far from bringing moral benefit to society, it would actually do moral harm.
Material justice cannot be accomplished by compulsion, a change of heart will not follow. The only way to achieve true justice is to change people’s hearts first—and then they will joyfully share their wealth.”
Responsible stewardship is giving out of the heart, not through coercive means such as taxation.
Thank you, Archbishop Aquila, for these carefully measured words. It would be wonderful if your statement might be quoted as “from the USCCB” in place of comments supposedly attributed to the overall group. Those comments, which one might describe as of a “knee-jerk” liberal quality, were discouraging, at best, and partisan, at worst.
We also appreciate the carefully chosen words of Bishop Morlino, Paul Ryan’s bishop in Madison, WI. Again, as you have noted, he is not endorsing Ryan as a political candidate, but pointing out the issues on which all bishops should speak, Catholic teaching and Catholic doctrine.
As many have noted, Paul Ryan’s budget proposals may not be the “perfect” solution, yet they are STATED, out there for discussion. Let’s look closely at what is actually in his plan, what is actually in Romney’s plan, and compare these with plans actually proposed by the President and his party. Your criteria, subsidiarity and solidarity, should be of paramount concern, but any solution to our financial crisis must be assured of financial responsibility of ALL citizens to pay the bill.
My and my wife’s Medicare insurance is due to be cancelled effective January, 2014. under present federal Medicare plans. I find that troubling, as well as doctors’ stated resistance to accepting any more Medicare or Medicaid patients due to expected, severe cuts over and above those already imposed (but delayed) by existing law. I cannot see how 30 million additional Medicaid patients will relieve the loads doctors carry now. I also do not see that seriously discussed in the media….it’s like your example of the gentleman whose debts will finally bury him and his family.
I’m ready for the civil discussion of what will actually occur and what should occur. I don’t want any surprises, whether they cost $8 billion or not.
Thank you for your direction. We need to apply these principles.
Thien,
Giving out of the heart is a decimal of the medicaid budget which was 401.1 billion dollars in 2010. Catholics gave 60 million dollars after the Haiti earthquake…a dollar each on average which really means a few gave a lot. Compare 401 billion to 60 million. The medicaid budget was 6,683 times larger than what we gave from the heart to Haiti. Coercion gets a lot more done. Charity from the heart would make the Ryan cutbacks look like added funds.
37% of childbirths in the US are covered by Medicaid; c. 63% of the elderly in nursing homes are covered by Medicaid. Ryan will never need it for a nursing home because he married a wealthy lady. Medicaid then is funneling 63% of a Catholic nursing home’s income into the nun’s livelihood. Ryan is subtracting from that and we’re thanking him…roflol.
Ryan’s cuts will increase abortions because for the poor, a $400 abortion at ten weeks is way cheaper than prenatal, delivery and postpartum which cuts will slowly take from them. Vote for Ryan. Just don’t think this is a canonization we’re doing when we vote for him. We lionized Corapi, Enteneuer, Santorum and now Ryan beyond who they are variously at varying levels. Ryan’s a pol. He sought stimulus money while denouncing it. He’s a pol….he’s not St. Francis. Vote for him. But don’t pretend that charity will affect a 401 billion dollar budget. The Vatican has one billion in savings. If they gave it to Medicaid, it would be 400 times less than the budget. Stop the charity urban legend. It can’t help large countries. Charity is too tiny
And Ryan’s support for torture, Your Excellency? You didn’t mention it.
Bill,
No one is canonizing Paul Ryan or comparing him to St. Francis the way the media have put Nancy Pelosi, the Kennedy’s or Obama (comparing to St. Martin de Porres) on the pedestal. I just think that it’s great to hear bishops who would speakup against the media that are chastising him by labeling him as “dissent” or contradicting the Catholic social teachings. Also painting Paul Ryan’s marriage to Janna Little, a rich lady, is also very misleading. If you think that she’s a rich lady like John Kerry’s wife (Teresa Heitz), you may want to check your source. Before marrying Paul, she’s a tax attorney not an heiress to a multibillion dollars Heitz Ketchup or Pelosi’s investor husband. She gave up her career to stay at home and raise a family; and for that, the feminism of the secular went nuts b/c she represents an ideology of Catholic woman.
Besides these, the main point is subsidiarity. The US government spent billions and billions of $$$ to help the poor and fight poverty over decades. What are the outcome? Are the poor getting any better? At some point in time, it is a moral thing to do to challenge or rethink how the government applies subsidiarity.
The great Oriental philosopher Confucius once said: “Give a fish to a man; he has food for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime.”
Bill: I commend you for your well-intentioned humanitarian/socialistic objectives. Unfortunately, I question your naive confidence in the government’s willingness and capacity to uphold Christian values. Consider Orestes Brownson’s mid-19th Century obeservation: “The humanitarians are more dangerous in principle than the egoists, for they have the appearance of building on a broader and deeper foundation, of being more Christian, more philosophic, more generous and philanthropic; but Satan is never more successful than under the guise of light. His favorite guise in modern times is that of philanthropy. He is a genuine humanitarian, and aims to persuade the world that humanitarianism is Christianity, and that man is God; that the soft and charming sentiment of philanthropy is real Christian charity; he dupes both individuals and nations, and makes them do his work, when they believe they are earnestly and most successfully doing the work of God.”
Pro-lifers blatently ignored the Romney fundraiser held by Teva a large manufacturer of birth control and “morning after” pills. The “firm and absolute” issue of Life seems expendable if the candidate mirrors your personal views on other, more economic, issues.
Bravo! Bravo! Thank you. Ryan must make these necessary cuts. Obama has already been cutting payments to doctors for the elderly for years. He’s allocating the resources to abortions and contraception. It’s time this was reversed.
Dr. Marshall
The numbers are there. Catholic charitable giving doesn’t stand a chance of funding sick elderly in skilled nursing homes which costs in the multiple billions. When you drive past a Catholic nursing home run by nuns, it is receiving 60% of its funds from medicaid. When you drive past a real Catholic hospital, 37% of its infant delivery funds come from Medicaid. Heck..the Vatican gave Haiti $200,000 after the quake. Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt gave over a million to Haiti….five times the Vatican sum. Several Hollywood sinners gave millions equal to ten percent of what all Catholics gave to Haiti which country by the way has vanished by the way from all tv reporting.
Thien
Ryan had about $357K when they married and she had over a million and later she inherited millions more. That means they won’t need the Medicaid in old age that he is paring for your future. Nowhere did I ever compare them to billionaires. That was in your imagination not in my post.
Good article. No politician is ever perfect unless Jesus or the Blessed Mother were running. I vote for life. And yes I do give to children once they are alive thru the maternity shelter and my missionary charities. If social justice Catholics care so much about the poor, they are lot of ways to give in your community and throughout the world. Our country has to change and get its fiscal house in order or our children and grandchildren will have nothing. Why so much envy for the rich?
Where in Catholic theology are we taught to borrow money to give to the poor?
“the Vatican gave Haiti $200,000 after the quake. Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt gave over a million to Haiti….five times the Vatican sum. Several Hollywood sinners gave millions equal to ten percent of what all Catholics gave to Haiti which country by the way has vanished by the way from all tv reporting.”
Isn’t that the way it should be…individuals providing for those in need, not bureaucratic institutions. The sad truth about Haiti is that even with all that aide the country is fundamentally crippled by corruption, greed and ignorance. Infustions of foreign aid funneled through governmental organizations is largely wasted and no one is held accountable. No amount of welfare, domestic or international, will solve the basic problems inherent in people who have come to rely on others for their daily needs.
Pope Benedict’s chastising Western governments for “living at the expense of future generations” reminded me of CCC #2431. The current regime has gone beyond its scope. Its primary responsibilities are to warrant the security, individual freedom, private properties and efficient public services, in addition to overseeing the the exercise of human rights in economic sector. Social programs by government are not as effective as privately non-profit orgs such as Catholic Charities and so on. Instead of encouraging the faith-based charities to continue its mission of improving society, the current admin makes it harder by pushing them to the corner. They have no choice but to repsond via HHS lawsuits (Becket Fund reported the number of plaintiffs has increased to 58). This phenomenon is historic in the history of US, and so it became one of the reasons why the House passed the Ryan budget plan b/c it called for repealing the Obamacare.
St. Augustine said “charity is not substitute for justice withheld”. The Obamacare has good intention, but the bottom line is that it is tainted with unjust marks.
I am not an expert on Catholicism like the good Archbishop, but God writes His Truth on everyone’s heart. We are all responsible for our neighbor by our example and witness - whether it is their living circumstance, their choice to do drugs and alcohol, their choice to kill the unborn. We must fight to inform people who damage life about the good that God has in mind in its stead.
Thank you your Excellency. On one point, I do believe it is quite charitable of you to call Representative Ryan a fiscal conservative. His voting record on budget overrides, TARP, and continued support for USA’s global military reach leads me to the opposite conclusion. I guess I might consider him to be one of the lesser of the big spending Republican and Democrat politicians supporting an unconstitutional bloated federal government.
Good article! I for one am getting tired of those who want to pick and choose between what is negotiable and what is not! There are things that are NOT NEGOTIABLE: abortion, marriage, “mercy killing” or euthanasia (which with this current administration is right around the corner)… and I could go on. These things the Church has spoken on and there are absolute answers (as was mentioned in this article “For Catholics, there are certain social issues on which the answers are firm and absolute. Catholics must recognize the dignity of the unborn and the injustice of legalized killing. Catholics must recognize the dignity of human sexuality and the immutability of marriage between man and woman.”
There are also things that can be debated / discussed and how the poor are taken care of is one of them – I am NOT saying this is a small issue or one that does not deserve serious attention. However, I believe the abuses (and I personally know people who are milking the system and are perfectly capable of working and lazy is the kindest way I can describe them!) So, am I for taking care of the poor? – yes, am I for fixing the very broken system we have – YES! I think ignoring the problems in our current system or thinking we can continue with it are even more problematic and will have worse ending then the story of the family in the beginning of this article.
Thank you, Archbishop Aquila, for an outstanding article! And you, too, Rebecca (above). I’d like to add that the National Right to Life Committee rated Paul Ryan 100%, indicating a strong pro-life record. In addition, Ryan has the courage to try to make the federal government fiscally responsible so that our children aren’t saddled with the growing $17 trillion federal deficit.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.