Wednesday, September 19, 2012

Fr. Barron Comments on Paul Ryan and Catholic Social Teaching

Note: Kevin and I have been MIA from blogging the past few days or so because we had family in town visiting.  I will make my blog rounds shortly.  God Bless.


Doom said...

I get most of that, and agree with most of it, but certainly not all of it. For example, I would limit food stamps to married couples who have fallen on hard times, and for very limited periods of time. After that I would suggest charity. Unemployment for... how many years? Too many "good things" have turned absolutely rotten. The safety net is about to bring the nation to it's knees, if it hasn't. It is broken.

On the other hand, the basic tenets of what he is saying? Absolutely. I would sum it up in terms of... say a dog. He can't be allowed to go where he wants, when he wants. So he is confined (it is hoped) by a fence and/or a chain. Within a certain domain he is almost totally free. But there are limits. As such, those who have taken on the duty to overview the animals behavior must assure the dog has food, water, is clean, has a clean place to live, etc. Sure, there are times where he may be allowed to roam, or be taken on a leash or not to other areas if supervised. But he is limited in some way or another most of the time, if quite free within those limits.

I still think many priests and such are... too much on the side of government as a charity. It isn't a charity, doesn't work well as one, and is a proven failure, collapsing national economies as easily as we breath. Granted, politics is not really the realm of the clergy. While it is nice to have some understanding, that just isn't what they are supposed to be about. Even the Church is not primarily a charity organization. That is something even She does on the side. Her job is to keep the faith, hold the line on what is non-negotiable, and act in good faith to teach, inform, strengthen, and guide the faithful for the preservation of their souls.

Just... rambling as I go over a few things in my mind.

Silverfiddle said...

That was pretty good rambling, Doom, I agree.

Charity is a personal responsibility each of us bears; it is not the job of government.

Teresa said...


That was some great rambling. I wouldn't limit food stamps to only married couples. I would include singles also but I totally agree that there should be a time limit.

Yes, a good many priests think government is charity. Those are the ones over about 60-65 though. The younger priests are more faithful to the Church, more Traditional than the old fogies priests. Human issues are involved in politics and intermingled with the saving the of souls are human issues which have been made political today - abortion, euthanasia, traditional marriage(gay "marriage") etc.- I believe the Church in America, which members are citizens of the USA whether priests or lay people, have a right to enter the fray into politics. Actually more so a duty IMO. But, yes, I do agree that the USCCB can be too political at times.

Teresa said...


I think both government and we as individuals bear responsibility to feed the needy and so forth. Granted our government has turned into Leviathan which is now encouraging a culture of dependency and for us to become a nanny state society. The safety net has become more than a hammock. Unfortunately our government has encouraged poverty as a way of life instead of it being looked at as a bump in a road poverty is looked at with contentment.

The question is: Is government getting in the way of private charity? Would individuals be more charitable if the government was less intrusive in our lives? Or is there too much materialism in our culture for that to happen?

Doom said...

There would be a much reduced role for charity if society decided that lounging while healthy and fit was not worthy of compensation. I'm not sure if the government is getting in the way of charity so much as creating a false notion of what charity really means. Besides, if "charity" is enacted through force of law, then it is not charity, but robbery, even if you argue it is for the good. As the Catechism indicates, a good deed has to be both good in intent and end, and circumstantial aspects are complicit. For a deed to be good, it must be good throughout and whole. Silverfiddle played it well, too. It is personal, not communal... Charity that is.

The reason I would eliminate food stamps for single people is because SS takes care of disability, and by non-disabled single people getting food stamps (in an unbalanced manner, single moms can easily be shown to get more than any others), then the state has sanctioned, inculcated, single parenting and divorce. Whether that is an unintended or intended consequence? It depends on which liberal you are talking with.

Oh, and I do think priests, paupers, princes of industry, and people like us ought to be a part of the fray. I just think priests should leave their collars out of it, save when something really does involve the safety of our soul. As people, sure. As priests... no. Just as professors, teachers, and others should not (but way too often do) subject a captive audience to their political notions.

My problem with Catholic USA is that too many are on the wrong side of the Pope AND the Church AND the Magesterium, even setting partisan issues aside. It seems to be... straightening out though. Pun may be implied at your leisure.

I hope I'm not coming across too strongly. I'm just laying out some things, seeing what responses may be. Well, and I am probably a bit more conservative than most.

Leticia said...

I am all for helping those in need, but not indefinitely. There really has to be a limit, or as we are seeing today, people want to stay and live off the government until the day they die.

Right Wing Theocrat said...

It sounds like the left have two figures to hate on the right, Romney for obvious reasons and now Ryan. Sarah Palin must be breathing easier now.

Reaganite Republican said...

Glad to have you back for the coming battle, T!

Go get 'em...