Is Ryan a "Cafeteria Catholic"?

If so, he may be filling up his tray with the right stuff.  The Wall Street Journal chronicles the trials of Ryan the Heretic:
So here we are in 2012, when all but one of the active senators and representatives who are members of the official Catholics for Obama campaign team enjoy a 100% approval rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America. 
This fundamental dissent from a basic church teaching is now a fact of modern Democratic Catholic life.  The result for our politics is an extraordinary campaign, in the 10 days since Paul Ryan became the Republican candidate for vice president, by those on the Catholic left to strike a moral equivalence between Mr. Ryan's reform budget and Democratic Catholic support for the party's absolutist position on abortion.
Mr. Ryan's own bishop wrote recently that the Church considers abortion
an "intrinsic evil" (meaning always and everywhere wrong, regardless of circumstances). In sharp contrast, he said, on issues such as how best to create jobs or help the poor, "there can be difference according to how best to follow the principles which the church offers."
As a result, the bishop concluded, "it's wrong to suggest that [Ryan's] views somehow make him a bad Catholic."  In the view of Catholic progressives, however, his budget certainly does.  That leaves us with the conclusion that Catholic progressives
believe that the pope and bishops have nothing of value to offer about the sanctity of marriage or the duty of protecting unborn life, [but] when it comes to federal spending, suddenly a miter means infallibility.


Miss Ladybug said...

My mom has commented more than once about how she doesn't understand why fellow parishioners support Obama (she sees a lot of cars in the parking lot with Obama bumper stickers...).

Grim said...

Ryan runs into potential trouble on the abortion issue, though, if he confirms the statement the Romney campaign spokesman made on his behalf:

"Gov. Romney and Congressman Ryan disagree with Mr. Akin's statement, and a Romney-Ryan administration would not oppose abortion in instances of rape," Romney campaign spokeswoman Amanda Henneberg told multiple news organizations on Monday.

I assume that his actual position is somewhat more nuanced, even if it is as limited as "would morally oppose, while respecting states' rights to legislate these issues." That seems to be the Romney campaign's actual position (coupled with a GOP platform that advocates against abortion in all circumstances).

Texan99 said...

He's a heretic! Burn him!

Grim said...

Well, first he has to repent, and then he has to recant his repentance. You don't get to burn them straight off.

E Hines said...

Ryan runs into potential trouble on the abortion issue....if he confirms the statement the Romney campaign spokesman made on his behalf....

I don't think so. He's already acknowledged the disagreement and said in so many words that it's President Romney's abortion agenda that will be set. Doesn't mean he can't--or won't--continue to jawbone the matter at every turn, but in a proper administration, there can be only one President.

You don't get to burn them straight off.

Yeah, I do. My stake. My rules.

Eric Hines

Assistant Village Idiot said...

Discussion trap. There is evidence on this thread that people think criticism of politicians by liberals can be effectively refuted on logical grounds. Logic don' enner inoo it. Liberals believe the budget issues have similar moral significance because of social and emotional factors.

Grim said... a proper administration, there can be only one President.

What's that about Dick Cheney?

Dad29 said...

That seems to be the Romney campaign's actual position

No, it's not.

When Romney campaign explicitly says that 'we would not oppose laws which allow rape-exception' THAT becomes their position.

The website is 'no longer operative'.

Grim said...

Well, just so we're on the same page about what the website says, here is is now. I looked it up earlier today to try to figure out what the campaign's position really was.

Mitt Romney is pro-life. He believes it speaks well of the country that almost all Americans recognize that abortion is a problem. And in the quiet of conscience, people of both political parties know that more than a million abortions a year cannot be squared with the good heart of America.

Mitt believes that life begins at conception and wishes that the laws of our nation reflected that view. But while the nation remains so divided, he believes that the right next step is for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade – a case of blatant judicial activism that took a decision that should be left to the people and placed it in the hands of unelected judges. With Roe overturned, states will be empowered through the democratic process to determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate.

Mitt supports the Hyde Amendment, which broadly bars the use of federal funds for abortions. As president, he will end federal funding for abortion advocates like Planned Parenthood. He will protect the right of health care workers to follow their conscience in their work. And he will nominate judges who know the difference between personal opinion and the law.

Because the good heart of America knows no boundaries, a commitment to protecting life should not stop at the water’s edge. Taking innocent life is always wrong and always tragic, wherever it happens. The compassionate instincts of this country should not be silent in the face of injustices like China’s One-Child policy. No one will ever hear a President Romney or his vice president tell the Chinese government that "I fully understand" and won’t “second guess” compulsory sterilization and forced abortion.

Americans have a moral duty to uphold the sanctity of life and protect the weakest, most vulnerable and most innocent among us. As president, Mitt will ensure that American laws reflect America’s values of preserving life at home and abroad.

Grim said...

All we have in terms of what the spokesman said is what the spokesman said. As we all know, one of the wonderful benefits of having a spokesman is that you can later step in and say, "No, that idiot didn't understand what I really meant."

This, by the way, has an analogue in dealing with Iraqi tribes: the elder brother leaves the room 'to take care of something.' You can negotiate all you want with the younger brother, cousin, or whomever else was left to take care of business; but in the absence of the senior brother, the final 'contract' doesn't actually mean anything.

Ryan can still repudiate this, and for that matter so can Romney. It's a bad way to do business, but it's part of the game we've somehow agreed to allow our candidates to play. Heck, even our Presidents are let to play this game.

E Hines said...

What's that about Dick Cheney?

With regard to what? According to both his and Bush the Younger's memoirs, Cheney often was overruled by the President. There was no question in their minds about who was in charge.

Eric Hines

Grim said...

It was a joke, Mr. Hines. The Hall is a merry place, sometimes. Not so much lately, though, so I undestand your confusion.

bthun said...

"The Hall is a merry place, sometimes. Not so much lately, though"...

I speak for myself and none other, but I'd say it's not so much The Hall as much as it is a fatigue with the overall FUBAR state of things. Can't live with it can't <Redacted on 5A grounds> ...

While I enjoy reading the thoughts/ideas of my favorite bloggers and those who comment on their topics, and will religiously allocate a bit of the day to do so... I find that, for some reason, I'm not overly motivated to yap about much these days. I guess I'm stuck in look & listen and align my ducks mode.

Not to mention the to-do task list, Walkin' Boss, the needs of various neighbor's and our children's needs seem to keep the gimpy carcass thumpin' along at or near its duty-rated capacity.

Why, if not for the availability of good beer and the occasional Jack Daniels, I'd be in a perpetual muted state of grumpy.

Grim said...

Well, I think we need a holiday from all the troubles we have to face. Let's take one.

MissC said...

Romney did not check with Salt Lake to see if his stand squared with the LDS church.

It would be vastly amusing to see Presidents Monson and Packer denounce him for his stand in leaving abortion funding to the states, but they won't.

Why? Because Romney's stand is in line with the Constitution as re: the tenth amendment. I also notice that Harry Reid has not been hauled before the Twelve or the First Presidency for his stands. While the majority of Mormons believe Mr. Reid is in league with Satan, Mr Reid is also in possession of his will to choose.

He has the right, you see, of dissent with the LDS church when it comes to social issues.