SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Cardinal Dolan’s Paul Ryan Problem

PLANK AUGUST 31, 2012

Cardinal Dolan’s Paul Ryan Problem

In the weeks since Mitt Romney selected Paul Ryan to be his running mate, there has been a lot of talk about whether Ryan will face problems with Catholic voters over the fact that church leaders have repeatedly criticized his budget for its extreme cuts to social programs and “fail[ure] to meet moral criteria.” But there has been very little discussion about the much bigger problem Ryan poses for the U.S. Catholic bishops themselves, especially the man who offered the benediction Thursday night after Romney’s acceptance speech—Cardinal Timothy Dolan.

Dolan is both the president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and head of the Archdiocese of New York, a role sometimes referred to as “America’s Pope.” He came to his post in New York from Milwaukee, where he got to know Ryan, who is a Catholic and a Wisconsin congressman. On his radio program two weeks ago, Dolan talked about his friendship with Ryan:

"We go way back, Congressman Paul Ryan and I. I came to know and admire him immensely. And I would consider him a friend. He and his wife Janna and their three kids have been guests in my house; I’ve been a guest at their house. They’re remarkably upright, refreshing people. And he’s a great public servant." 

That admiring relationship must make it awkward for the Cardinal when Ryan does things like misrepresent Catholic social teaching or insist that health care is not a right but a privilege or refer to social programs that the bishops conference itself helps run as a “safety hammock.” After all, when a Catholic Democrat publicly dissents from church teaching or misrepresents it to a large audience, church leaders are quick to call out him or her for the transgression. 

In the last presidential campaign, for instance, the Catholic running mate on the Democratic ticket spoke on “Meet the Press” about church teaching regarding conception. Joe Biden said that he was “prepared as a matter of faith to accept that life begins at the moment of conception,” but that it would be “inappropriate in a pluralistic society” to impose that belief on others through law. In response, Bishop Robert Morlino of Madison—who happens to be Ryan’s bishop—devoted his homily to addressing the problem of people who “claim to be Catholic.” When someone has high-profile as Biden talked about his faith in ways that did not appropriately reflect church teaching, argued Morlino, it was confusing for other Catholics. “Prominent Catholics,” he said, “should not be violating the separation of church and state by teaching the wrong thing.” 

Morlino insisted that he was not singling out Democrats for criticism. “If Republican candidates were doing precisely that, I would speak out with exactly the same determination.” The Bishop of Madison was joined by Charles Chaput, then the Archbishop of Denver, who put out a statement saying that Catholic politicians in high-profile roles expose themselves to “legitimate scrutiny” when they talk about Catholic beliefs and teachings. “Meet the Press has become a national window on the flawed moral reasoning of some Catholic public servants,” said Chaput.

Four years later, have those church leaders taken Ryan to task for using Catholic social teaching to defend draconian cuts to social welfare programs? Hardly. These days, Morlino is busy protecting Ryan from those who have “unfairly attacked his reputation” by criticizing his enthusiasm for slashing social programs and foreign assistance. The current archbishop of Denver, Samuel Aquila, has written a defense of Ryan’s argument that the best way to help the poor is to reduce our national debt. “Paul Ryan is concerned that America will soon be bankrupt, and so we must make hard choices,” wrote Aquila two weeks ago. “If he is right, and we ignore the message because the consequences seem compassion-less, our sentimental affections may cripple the ones our Lord loves the most—our children.”

Neither prelate addressed Ryan’s role in killing plans to address the debt problem or his record in voting for budget-busting measures during the Bush Administration that exploded the deficit.

Meanwhile, Dolan praises Ryan as a “great public servant” and praises his “solicitude for the poor.”That solicitude was not on display Wednesday night, when Ryan devoted just two sentences of his speech to the poor: “And the greatest of all responsibilities, is that of the strong to protect the weak. The truest measure of any society is how it treats those who cannot defend or care for themselves.” But wait! Even there, Ryan wasn’t talking about the poor—social conservatives use the language of "the strong protecting the weak" to refer to the unborn when talking about abortion. (See: George W. Bush and Sam Brownback)

Earlier this spring, Ryan explained in an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network why he believes his budget plans do conform with Catholic social teaching, especially the principle known as the preferential option for the poor. “The preferential option for the poor, which is one of the primary tenants of Catholic social teaching,” said Ryan, “means don’t keep people poor, don’t make people dependent on government so that they stay stuck at their station in life, help people get out of poverty onto a life of independence.” That is a worthy goal, but not a definition of the preferential option, as nearly 90 Georgetown faculty members and priests wrote to remind Ryan after that interview. “We would be remiss in our duty to you and our students if we did not challenge your continuing misuse of Catholic teaching to defend a budget plan that decimates food programs for struggling families, radically weakens protections for the elderly and sick, and gives more tax breaks to the wealthiest few,” read the letter.

Even Dolan has made clear that he and Ryan disagree about this. On his radio program, Dolan reported that the two had a heated conversation about Ryan’s belief that entitlement programs only coddle the poor. In his convention speech, Ryan introduced a new topic of disagreement—the question of whether health care is a right or a privilege. Referring to the Obama health care plan as “an entitlement we didn’t even ask for,” Ryan firmly placed himself in the “privilege” camp. The Catholic church, however, has long considered guaranteed health care a universal right. As recently as 2010, Pope Benedict XVI wrote that it was one of the “inalienable rights” of man.

Finally, Ryan has recently broken with church teaching on abortion, telling reporters that he was“comfortable” with Romney’s position of allowing abortions in cases of rape and incest or if the life of the mother is at risk. No one could accuse Ryan of supporting abortion rights—he has a solid anti-abortion voting record and has cosponsored a so-called personhood bill in the House. But the church’s position holds that abortion is murder and that there are no exceptions for murder. Surely, Catholic leaders cannot be happy about Ryan claiming that he is “comfortable” with murder under the right circumstances.

Let me state here clearly that I don’t believe any politician should have to heed the orders of her religious leaders in her public role. But the Catholic church has spent much of the past three decades making clear to Catholic Democrats that if their voting records or public statements or policy proposals come into conflict with church teaching, then they no longer have the option of calling themselves Catholics. When I interviewed Rosa DeLauro for my book on Democrats and religion, she told me about going to see her archbishop when she first ran for Congress. At the time, she was a trustee for the Catholic high school she had attended, but the archbishop had threatened to decertify the school as a Catholic institution if she remained on the board. DeLauro met with the archbishop to ask him why. “Let me be perfectly clear,” she remembers him telling her. “You, Kennedy, Dodd, Moynihan—you are not welcome in the Church.”

It is not unreasonable to ask if Catholic bishops are playing favorites if they are content to sit back and let the GOP vice presidential nominee proudly call himself a Catholic and attempt to square his positions with church teaching while taking stands that are at odds with that teaching. Yes, the USCCB has written letters to Congress criticizing the Ryan budget. But Ryan has wrongly characterized those letters as representing the views of just a few bishops instead of the entire conference without being publicly corrected by church officials. And the vast majority of Catholics do not read the letters bishops send to Congress in any case.

Catholic parishioners cannot help but notice, however, when the church holds a two-week teach-in on religious liberty, or instructs every parish to preach on the threat to religious liberty posed by a certain current administration. Romney has happily signed onto that effort, accusing Obama of waging a “war on religion” and running a television ad with the same charge. At the beginning of Obama’s term, the Catholic church launched a campaign to urge Catholics in every parish to send postcards to the White House, telling the president not to sign abortion rights legislation that hadn’t even been introduced (and still hasn’t) in Congress. At the very least, the bishops could approve onemeasly bulletin insert educating their flock about Catholic teaching on the economy and poverty.

When the Vatican issued its report rebuking the group representing most U.S. nuns earlier this year, among the complaints was the accusation that the sisters spend all their time talking about social justice, to the exclusion of focusing on issues like abortion and gay marriage. In the unlikely event that the Vatican ever investigated the U.S. bishops, it would find that the church's most visible leaders doing the opposite. The bishops don't completely ignore social justice nor do the sisters ignore abortion. But they can only blame themselves if high-ranking Catholic Republicans ignore church teachings with impunity. 

As for Cardinal Dolan, he has found himself outplayed by the GOP this week. Convention organizers can't be faulted for breaking with the tradition of asking a local Catholic leader to pray and instead inviting Dolan--but the Cardinal would have been wise to send his regrets. He is helped by the fact that the Democrats have asked him to offer the benediction at their convention next week as well.

But if there was any question that Republicans hoped to use Dolan's presence to implicitly bless their peculiar way of caring for the poor, it was erased with John Boehner's introduction of Cardinal Dolan: "He's a man who knows that the preferential option for the poor doesn't translate into a preferential option for big government." Maybe not. But it is government grants to the tune of more than half a billion dollars that allow Catholic organizations to do their charitable work of helping the poor. It's a shame Dolan didn't go off script in his prayer to gently remind Boehner and Ryan of that fact.

 

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 19 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

19 comments

***But the church’s position holds that abortion is murder and that there are no exceptions for murder. Surely, Catholic leaders cannot be happy about Ryan claiming that he is “comfortable” with murder under the right circumstances.*** And would there happen to be any such statements from Catholic officials on the issue of capital punishment? On the death penalty stance of most Republicans? {*crickets*} Very well, then. Where's Christopher Hitchens (PBUH) when we need him? Oh, here he is, writing from beyond the grave and earning, yet again, my highest recommendation: http://www.amazon.com/Mortality-Christopher-Hitchens/dp/1455502758/

- Konstantin

August 31, 2012 at 3:11am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Has Cardinal Dolan, and the Catholic Church, betrayed the Church's, and Christianity's, call to care for the poor including providing basic health care? Or did the Obama Administration betray the Church? The Church supported the universal care provisions of ACA, and was not a party to the lawsuit that challenged the constitutionality of ACA. But when the Obama Administration chose to include contraceptives as an "essential benefit" that health care plans must cover, I don't doubt that the Church felt betrayed. I have criticized the Administration about the contraception mandate, that it reflects a political tone deafness we have seen all too often during the past three and a half years. Why, I and many others asked, would the Administration risk losing a supporter of health care reform, the Church, for a $70 per month benefit? Critics of the Church might respond that, even if the mandate constitutes a betrayal, it doesn't justify the Church's betrayal of the poor. True enough. But when faced with what the Church believed to be a direct challenge from the Administration, the Church responded in a very predictable way. [My much more significant criticism of the contraception mandate (as a matter of policy not politics) is that it will undermine far more important issues that will arise in crafting "essential benefits" that must be included in health care plans, such as a very expensive bone marrow transplant that may cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, not $70, without which the patient will likely die. The contraception mandate will likely result in a schedule of "essential benefits" that is far less comprehensive, the Administration having wasted its political advantage for a measly $70.]

- rayward

August 31, 2012 at 7:40am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Once Dolan deals with that massive pediphillia ring he calls the priesthood, let me know. I might care then what a massive conspiracy outfit to protect pediphiles has to say about god. He should be in a cell with Jerry Sandusky. Hey Janna, keep a close watch on your kids when he is around.. Does anyone else remember that the feds staged a massive attack on the Branch Davidians based on a rumor about child abuse? Dolan has as much credibility as his Lyin' Ryan. I think I remember lying is a sin so maybe that's why Ryan keeps Dolan on call....

- smabry03

August 31, 2012 at 8:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ray, sorry, but you are wrong. If my wife were to get pregnant again she could die. The church's jihad against reproductive health is medieval. The notion that a Catholic employer could subject my wife to potential death because he is against contraception even if my wife is not Catholic is nuts. And you want to take $70 more a month to my already $600 a month in premium payments??? As to the rest, this is a problem primarily of the American Catholic church leadership. They are a bunch of fat, white creepy old men. The church in America will not survive until that rot dies off and hopefully they get rid of the prohibition against married priests (which is not universal in the church, Eastern Rite priests can get married and Lutheran and Episcopal married priests can become priests)

- blackton

August 31, 2012 at 9:10am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm pretty certain the "preferential option for the poor" doesn't translate into tax cuts for the rich.

- cspencef

August 31, 2012 at 9:26am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Basically, it's an oxymoron to be a Christian Republican. A new term must be applied. Non-Jewish believer in Old-Testament God of the Torah, perhaps? Perhaps a new denomination might be formed, perhaps based on considering The Ruling Class as a divine revelation not entirely dissimilar from that of Moroni. Peter O'Toole would certainly suffice as a rather charismatic Messiah.

- drofnats1

August 31, 2012 at 9:27am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A great article, Amy. This is a fairly serious issue, and I think you have done well to present the case. But you should have left out the nit-picky stuff, like Ryan being comfortable with Romney's position. It weakens your argument injecting pettiness, I think. The Catholic Church doesn't actively preach intolerance, and Ryan's statement isn't anywhere near being a full-throated endorsement. There is plenty of meat on this issue, I think it's better to leave the little stuff out.

- GSpinks

August 31, 2012 at 10:33am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

@GSpinks: Reproductive rights for women isn't "little," "nit-picky" stuff. It's a major economic and social issue. And rayward: Really? You're taking the Church's side on the contraception issue? 98 percent of Catholic women have used birth control, and the other two percent are lesbians.

- heppner52

August 31, 2012 at 11:03am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"And rayward: Really? You're taking the Church's side on the contraception issue? 98 percent of Catholic women have used birth control, and the other two percent are lesbians." Good point, heppner52. I wonder what the Church's position is about lesbians becoming pregnant by other means than the "natural" one. Since the Church wants members to go forth and multiply, I don't think they would object. ray, like you say, the issue shouldn't be how the ACA can save a woman $70 for birth control. It should be whether health care is a human right. And I understand the Pope says it is--as would Jesus. Yes, Obama has damaged himself with bishops and some lay Catholics with his stand, but in opposing him on this issue they've gone against the right-to-health-care position of the Pope--just like Church members do when they practice birth control. Sometimes I don't understand why people even stay with a religion. It seems like every time they breathe they break a rule, which is what people on the Right say about government.

- magboy47.

August 31, 2012 at 12:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't think the Old Testament god is that cruel. Somehow Jews and Torah wind up being "cruel," as opposed to the Christians of course who punish non-believers with an eternity in hell, suffering horribly forever and ever. In the Old Testament there are sophisticated ideas about debt forgiveness, environment, rest for workers and women, sharing of crops, living as a civilized person and society. I wish people would stop slandering the Old Testament like this. There is beautiful poetry, love songs, respect for nature and animals and the land, sexuality... Finally, contraception is vital to family health and many people don't earn enough to spare the $70 for pills.

- Sophia

August 31, 2012 at 12:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Many states have already the "contraception mandate" and the RC has not made a big fuss until now. Many religious people question one Federal program or another. If people can not be obligated to pay taxes or whatever unless they agree with how every penny is spent, then soon no taxes will be collected. This RC outrage is entirely manufactured.

- Vekert

August 31, 2012 at 2:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Sullivan" may or may not be an Irish Catholic name. In any case, Amy has obviously never heard of the Catholic principle of subsidiarity. It means take care of your family first, your local community next, the planet earth last.Taking care of the whole planet is a huge subject beyond our individual capacity. It means that compassion for remote people is valid, but one has to first ensure the safety of immediate kin. Many liberal Catholic clergy support illegal aliens at the expense of their immediate unemployed parishoneers. They have more sympathy for outsiders than they do for Americans. ,

- raygun

August 31, 2012 at 2:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

“Many liberal Catholic clergy support illegal aliens at the expense of their immediate unemployed parishoneers. They have more sympathy for outsiders than they do for Americans. ,”… Don’t stop now raygun, I’d like to hear more empirical analysis about this issue. I don’t even know where to start with these two sentences, other than wondering what *parishoneers* may be. The “many liberal Catholic clergy” you reference obviously don’t subscribe to the American Exceptionalism concept. Not very Christian, in my opinion...

- OkiSaru

August 31, 2012 at 3:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

heppner, I was referring to this: "he was“comfortable” with Romney’s position of allowing abortions in cases of rape and incest or if the life of the mother is at risk." There is a point to be made about the tolerance the Church is showing the Republicans but not the Democrats, but I think the author falls well short of making the case and ultimately comes across as being nit-picky.

- GSpinks

August 31, 2012 at 3:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

No, subsidiarity is a little different. It is the Catholic principle that what can be carried out effectively at a lower/more local level of authority should not be assigned to a more higher/more remote level. So something that can be perfectly well regulated within the individual family, for example, should not come under the purview of the ward or the city council (or whatever); something that can be regulated satisfactorily by a city or county should not come under the purview of the state or the national government; and so on. Independent labor unions, employer organizations and the like also have particular perspectives that need to be respected. But large-scale tasks that are clearly beyond the scope of smaller units of social organization are legitimately the responsibility of the higher ones. Thus in the Catholic perspective there are, for example, legitmate tasks that only international organizations and agencies can take on e.g. as a result of international treaties, as the particular challenges (and climate is a good example) do not stop at national borders.

- ironyroad

August 31, 2012 at 3:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ironyroad: ok, if we are plain people leading plain lives, should we want our parish to protect us or sell us out to illegal aliens? I appreciate your measured & thoughtful comments, but the "compassion" of establishment Catholics does not help the traditional American nation.

- raygun

August 31, 2012 at 4:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

In the interests of full disclosure I am a very lapsed Catholic, but if I wasn't I think I would want the parish to be able to go about its normal business without state interference. Equally, I would not support the local clergy if they decided to e.g. run their entire social teaching by the Chamber of Commerce to get it approved first. Let alone hiding sexual predators from being called to account. What you say about compassion may be true, and I strongly believe that there are active traces today of the hostility between Catholics and the "traditional American nation" which was Protestant in its spirit for the first century or so.

- ironyroad

August 31, 2012 at 7:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

raygun - The Church advocates for "illegal aliens" because these Hispanic, Catholic workers ARE their parishoners.

- esmense

September 2, 2012 at 11:27am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Could it be that Dolan goes so easy on Ryan because there was an earlier priest-altar boy relationship there? Just wondering.

- orray2

September 2, 2012 at 11:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close