 |
|
|
|
 Rep. Paul Ryan says he doesn't believe the Catholic Church is preaching class warfare.
October 26th, 2011
05:40 PM ET
Rep. Ryan hits back at Catholic class warfare questionBy Eric Marrapodi, CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor Washington (CNN) - Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin, waded into a bit of economic theology Wednesday. The staunch Catholic, who recently told CNN that he gave up fear for Lent, was asked about the collision of his faith in finance and his faith in the church. The Vatican put out a new financial document Monday called "Towards reforming the international financial and monetary systems in the context of a global public authority." The document calls for a new global economic authority that could impose penalties on member states as a “way of ensuring that they possess efficient markets,” Roman Catholic Bishop Mario Toso said at a Monday news conference. While speaking at an event at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank in Washington, D.C., Ryan was asked about the document and the pope's latest encyclical, which also touched on economics and finance. The questioner asked if the pope's fiscal philosophy amounted to class warfare. In his June 2009 encyclical Caritas in Veritate, Pope Benedict XVI wrote to the faithful, "Today's international economic scene, marked by grave deviations and failures, requires a profoundly new way of understanding business enterprise." "It's been awhile since I read that one. Um, I actually do read these. I'm a good Catholic, you know ... get in trouble if I don't," joked Ryan, drawing laughter from the crowd. Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee, said he had skimmed the Vatican's document released Monday but kept his comments mainly to the pope's encyclical. "You could interpret these in different ways. If you read the totality of these encyclicals - that one in particular - I think you could derive different lessons from it. What I think he is probably getting at - and look, I am getting out on a limb here ... read 'Without Roots,' a book he wrote when he was then Cardinal Ratzinger with Marcello Pera, president of the Italian Senate at the time, a phenomenal piece going at the roots of moral relativism," Ryan said. The pope, he continued, "is talking about the extreme edge of individualism predicated upon moral relativism - that produces bad results in society for people and families, and I think that's the kind of thing he is talking about." "So, do I believe that we should have some kind of international system of dividing the pie? No, and I don't think that's what he is calling for," Ryan said. "I believe that the social Magisterium - again, I am saying this as a Catholic - is very helpful and it does not pick which of the two philosophies between the left and the right are right or wrong. That is up to the prudential judgment of lay people who are practicing, practice as politicians." CNN's Dan Gilgoff contributed to this report
« Previous entryFBI investigating Amish beard-cutting attacks
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
This guy is a clown and should not be aloud to play with the grown ups.
What's a "good Catholic"? Oh, I see, it's a Catholic who believes the Pope is just a silly old man who shouldn't be sticking his nose in other Catholics' financial business. Or is it a Catholic who, despite calls for increased discipline in the global financial market by their leader, attempts to instead take any steps necessary to achieve the exact opposite?
I trust neither of these men, Ryan or the Pope, to actually do the right thing in the context of what's right for all, not just Catholics...or more specifically, for rich Catholics.
Don't take this man at his word on anything he says. Don't listen to the things he says, just watch the actions he takes and you'll know all you need to know about him and those who share his ideology.
“the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank” ~ stop the lame stream media sucking up. The heritage foundation is a neo-con propaganda farm that only cares about furthering their radical ideology. And the dopey eyed Ryan is just one of their many bought and paid for political puppets. Ryan preaches their nonsense that has no factual or historical bases.
I really thought that Ryan was a follower of joel osteen and the theology of the rich. Ryan and those like him are the hypocrites - a modern day pharisee.
Eze 1:21 When those went, [these] went; and when those stood, [these] stood; and when those were lifted up from the earth, the wheels were lifted up over against them: for the spirit of the living creature [was] in the wheels.
AutoBots, Transform!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 🙂
MartinT wrote on Thursday, October 27, 2011 at 7:01 am, stating, "Wow, Joxer.. really? I mean, you really think that poorly of your god as to demand that atheists prove he does not exist? The burden of proof on anything is on the people who claim that something exists, not on those who do not believe. We gain nothing by attempting to do your job. We know that god is a myth, why would we need to prove that which is unprovable? Just wondering."
Anti\theists jostle and rub,,,,kinda like the baton and the rubbing of two batons of two or more fairy nice people. If one knows 'GOD is a myth', then why are you so adamantly in deniability and contritely bemoaning and wailing your a$$es off? You also cannot speak for "WE" for you are an only even though you are of society you still rant and rave as an aloneness. The "burden of proof" is in the reading and understanding of the Word and rightly dividing its' Truth from its' foibles. The calamities of 'manhood' and 'womanhood' and even 'childhood' give rise to spiritual needs and necessities beyond any anti/theistic's wildest denials. The dreams of the one reflect always and ever upon the devoted allegories of the many.
@G-D
If your God exists, then might not all gods postulated by man exist?
Can you disprove the existence of Angus, Belenos, Brigid, dana, Lugh, Dagda, Epona, Aphrodite, Apollo, Ares, Artemis, Atehna, Demeter, Dionysus, Eris, Eos, Gaia, Hades, Hekate, Helios, Hephaestus, Hera, hermes, Hestia, Pan, Poseidon, Selene, Uranus, Zeus, Mathilde, Elves, Eostre, Frigg, Hretha, Saxnot, Shef, Thuno, Tir, Weyland, Woden, Alfar, Balder, Beyla, Bil, Bragi, Byggvir, Dagr, Disir, Eir, Forseti, Freya, Freyr, Frigga, Heimdall, Hel, Hoenir, Idunn, Jord, Lofn, Loki, Mon, Njord, Norns, Nott, Odin, Ran, saga, Sif, Siofn, Skadi, Snotra, Sol, Syn, Ull, Thor, Tyr, Var, Vali, Vidar, Vor, Black Shuck, Herne, Jack in the Green, Holda, Nehalennia, Nerthus, endovelicus, Ataegina, Runesocesius, Apollo, Bacchus, Ceres, Cupid, Diana, Janus, Juno, Jupiter, Maia, Mars, Mercury, Minerva, Neptune, Pluto, Plutus, Proserpina, Venus, Vesta, Vulcan, Attis, Cybele, El-Gabal, Isis, Mithras, Sol Invictus, Endovelicus, Anubis, Aten, Atum, Bast, Bes, Geb, Hapi, Hathor, Heget, Horus, Imhotep, Isis, Khepry, Khnum, Maahes, Ma’at, Menhit, Mont, Naunet, Neith, Nephthys, Nut, Osiris, Ptah, ra, Sekhmnet, Sobek, Set, Tefnut, Thoth, An, Anshar, Anu, Apsu, Ashur, Damkina, Ea, Enki, Enlil, Ereshkigal, Nunurta, Hadad, Inanna, Ishtar, Kingu, Kishar, Marduk, Mummu, Nabu, Nammu, Nanna, Nergal, Ninhursag, Ninlil, Nintu, Shamash, Sin, Tiamat, Utu, Mitra, Amaterasu, Susanoo, Tsukiyomi, Inari, Tengu, Izanami, Izanagi, Daikoku, Ebisu, Benzaiten, Bishamonten, Fu.kurokuju, Jurojin, Hotei, Quetzalcoatl, Tlaloc, Inti, Kon, Mama Cocha, Mama Quilla, Manco Capac, Pachacamac, Viracoc.ha, and Zaramama
Dov Vestibule,,,
I never in my posts denied the Sons and Daughters of GOD. In matters of obliqueness, the Gods and Goddesses are an everness and they(Sons and Daughters of GOD), will not 'go down' without righteous reasonableness. Of GOD who is the Allness of CREATION itself is where the manifestations all things did become as material objects and sanctified the much to be alive and of living testimonials as to CREATION's abilities of the Magisterial welfares for wanton life in Life of life by LIFE.
come on now g-d... again with your proud statements of your god, seriously... work on the other sins for a bit and then do pride again...you know, mix it up a bit!
@G-D
Your wanton polysyllabic terminology server only to obfuscate the inanity of your response.
Are you postulating a pantheistic concept of God, a la Spinoza and Einstein?
If so, that is pretty far removed from the Anthropomorphic/Anthropocentric God described in the Bible.
So you think Zeus was real and a child of your God?
Doc Vestibule,,,, "So you think Zeus was real and a child of your God"
No Zeus was not a child of GOD. Zeus was the Son of Gaia and Uranus,,,, at least according to Crecian Theology,,, 😐
I think GD is smoking the good stuff again.
@GD
Actually Zeus was born from Coronus and Rhea, Corunus's parents were Gaia and Uranus, which makes more sense anyawys than god just poofed into existance, created earth and some monkeys and then poofed back out of existance.
@Tallulah – It's stupid Richard "I have a thesaurus!" Kaiser
Ahhhh.... I should have known. Thanks, Chuckles.
Did your god ever tell you people he never needed to be created? Why not? So you choose to go with magic, a god that always was. That is even sillier. If people demand logical proof for the big bang and prior, the same standards should be applied to proving their gods existence.
No one states the big bang is a certainty, neither is a god.
Take care of one another first, that's most important and most satisfying – it is peace with ones self.
Someone answer.. Why didn't god tell how he never needed to be created in a simple and provable way?
man created god is why..
God works in mysterious ways. You are not to ask questions of god.
Also, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...
A agree, that one is one of the funniest -> "God works in mysterious ways"
Did you make that up yourself? It sounded like it came from a world renown philosopher.
@Realist – its kind of like using god to fill in the gaps in science ('I don't know why we have floods, god must have done it' or 'I don't know how we got here, god must have done it'). It's a weak and lazy way to dismiss obvious logical flaws or inconsistencies of the abrahamic god.
HA! this dude looks crazy baked... i want some of what hes smoking!
=============@kimsland================== atheist are just as biased any religion is. But, I certainlly don't want it headed but I certainly don't want it headed Chatholics, because the papacy is really biased– because the papacy would like
Thanks Bo, got it.
===================@kimsland===========
Good job with the "copy and paste". Wow, impressive skill set
Considering the problem with the Vatican Bank and the following synopsis of Christian economics, the Pope should tend to matters of god and not financial markets.
Christian Economics/Greed 101:
The Baptizer drew crowds and charged for the "dunking". The historical Jesus saw a good thing and continued dunking and preaching the good word but added "healing" as an added charge to include free room and board. Sure was better than being a poor peasant but he got a bit too zealous and they nailed him to a tree. But still no greed there.
Paul picked up the money scent on the road to Damascus. He added some letters and a prophecy of the imminent second coming for a fee for salvation and "Gentilized" the good word to the "big buck" world. i.e. Paul was the first media evangelist!!! And he and the other Apostles forgot to pay their Roman taxes and the legendary actions by the Romans made them martyrs for future greed. Paul was guilty of minor greed?
Along comes Constantine. He saw the growing rich Christian community and recognized a new tax base so he set them "free". Major greed on his part!!
The Holy Roman "Empirers"/Popes/Kings/Queens/Evangelicals et al continued the money grab selling access to JC and heaven resulting in some of today's richest organizations on the globe i.e. the Christian churches (including the Mormon Church) and related aristocracies. Obvious greed!!!
An added note: As per R.B. Stewart in his introduction to the recent book, The Resurrection of Jesus, Crossan and Wright in Dialogue, ( Professors Crossan and Wright are On Faith panelists).
"Reimarus (1774-1778) posits that Jesus became sidetracked by embracing a political position, sought to force God's hand and that he died alone deserted by his disciples. What began as a call for repentance ended up as a misguided attempt to usher in the earthly political kingdom of God. After Jesus' failure and death, his disciples stole his body and declared his resurrection in order to maintain their financial security and ensure themselves some standing."
Some of Paul's money gathering activities some of which resulted in buying the Gentile entry into the then mostly Jewish version of Christianity:
Paul claimed almost total independence from the "mother church" in Jerusalem.[12] and yet was eager and diligent to bring material support from the various budding Gentile churches that he planted to the mother church at Jerusalem.
When a famine occurred in Judea, around 45–46,[24] Paul and Barnabas journeyed to Jerusalem to deliver financial support from the Antioch community.[25] According to Acts, Antioch had become an alternative center for Christians following the dispersion of the believers after the death of Stephen. It was in Antioch that the followers of Jesus were first called "Christians."[Ac. 11:26]. This act basically "greased" the entry of non-circu-mcised Gentiles into Christianity.
"Paul collected the money from his four provinces, Galatia, Macedonia, Achaia and Asia but, for obvious reasons, of propriety, had representatives take each province's own contribution".
wow, that's quite an imagination you have there.
For those interested in added studies of the historic Jesus and first-second century CE Palestine, some starting references:
o 1. Historical Jesus Theories, earlychristianwritings.com/theories.htm – the names of many of the contemporary historical Jesus scholars and the ti-tles of their over 100 books on the subject.
2. Early Christian Writings, earlychristianwritings.com/
– a list of early Christian doc-uments to include the year of publication–
30-60 CE Passion Narrative
40-80 Lost Sayings Gospel Q
50-60 1 Thessalonians
50-60 Philippians
50-60 Galatians
50-60 1 Corinthians
50-60 2 Corinthians
50-60 Romans
50-60 Philemon
50-80 Colossians
50-90 Signs Gospel
50-95 Book of Hebrews
50-120 Didache
50-140 Gospel of Thomas
50-140 Oxyrhynchus 1224 Gospel
50-200 Sophia of Jesus Christ
65-80 Gospel of Mark
70-100 Epistle of James
70-120 Egerton Gospel
70-160 Gospel of Peter
70-160 Secret Mark
70-200 Fayyum Fragment
70-200 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
73-200 Mara Bar Serapion
80-100 2 Thessalonians
80-100 Ephesians
80-100 Gospel of Matthew
80-110 1 Peter
80-120 Epistle of Barnabas
80-130 Gospel of Luke
80-130 Acts of the Apostles
80-140 1 Clement
80-150 Gospel of the Egyptians
80-150 Gospel of the Hebrews
80-250 Christian Sibyllines
90-95 Apocalypse of John
90-120 Gospel of John
90-120 1 John
90-120 2 John
90-120 3 John
90-120 Epistle of Jude
93 Flavius Josephus
100-150 1 Timothy
100-150 2 Timothy
100-150 T-itus
100-150 Apocalypse of Peter
100-150 Secret Book of James
100-150 Preaching of Peter
100-160 Gospel of the Ebionites
100-160 Gospel of the Nazoreans
100-160 Shepherd of Hermas
100-160 2 Peter
3. Historical Jesus Studies, faithfutures.org/HJstudies.html,
– "an extensive and constantly expanding literature on historical research into the person and cultural context of Jesus of Nazareth"
4. Jesus Database, faithfutures.org/JDB/intro.html–"The JESUS DATABASE is an online annotated inventory of the traditions concerning the life and teachings of Jesus that have survived from the first three centuries of the Common Era. It includes both canonical and extra-canonical materials, and is not limited to the traditions found within the Christian New Testament."
5. Josephus on Jesus mtio.com/articles/bissar24.htm
6. The Jesus Seminar, mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/seminar.html#Criteria
7. Writing the New Testament- mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/testament.html
8. Health and Healing in the Land of Israel By Joe Zias
joezias.com/HealthHealingLandIsrael.htm
9. Economics in First Century Palestine, K.C. Hanson and D. E. Oakman, Palestine in the Time of Jesus, Fortress Press, 1998.
10. 7. The Gnostic Jesus
Thanks Reality, not really interested though, I've done the reading and research on the "historical" jesus. In my humble opinion IF he existed at all, he certainly was NOT the figure from the New Testament. It is HIGHLY unlikely that there was even a biblical Jesus and certainly NOT one who had the Magical powers of the Christian Jesus.
Martin T,
As previously noted many times on this blog:
JC's family and friends had it right 2000 years ago ( Mark 3: 21 "And when his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself."
Said passage is one of the few judged to be authentic by most contemporary NT scholars. e.g. See Professor Ludemann's conclusion in his book, Jesus After 2000 Years, p. 24 and p. 694
Actually, Jesus was a bit "touched". After all he thought he spoke to Satan, thought he changed water into wine, thought he raised Lazarus from the dead etc. In today's world, said Jesus would be declared legally insane.
Or did P, M, M, L and J simply make him into a first century magic-man via their epistles and gospels of semi-fiction? Most contemporary NT experts after thorough analyses of all the scriptures go with the latter magic-man conclusion with J's gospel being mostly fiction.
Obviously, today's followers of Paul et al's "magic-man" are also a bit on the odd side believing in all the Christian mumbo jumbo about bodies resurrecting, and exorcisms, and miracles, and "magic-man atonement, and infallible, old, European, white men, and 24/7 body/blood sacrifices followed by consumption of said sacrifices. Yummy!!!!
So why do we really care what a first century CE, illiterate, long-dead, preacher/magic man would do or say?
And people still wonder why I refer to it as the religion corporation. Thanks reality! 🙂
'calls for a new global economic authority that could impose penalties on member states as a “way of ensuring that they possess efficient markets'
Anti/theist = the Anti\christ of the new global economic authority,,,, 🙁
'calls for a new global economic authority that could impose penalties on member states as a “way of ensuring that they possess efficient markets'
Just exactly how could "penalties" be a way of ensuring a member state(s) of "possessing" efficient markets and what type of markets, production markets or consumption markets?
Every night I pray to HIM to sent all the Anti/theists to concentration camps.
Hold on, YOU pray to god every day to send atheists, or anti/theists to concentrations camps? Really, wow what a good christian you are... Tell me, are you a big big fan of Hitler by chance?
God will not fulfill your prayers. Yes, I believe in him but he is about love not hate. You must try to convert the non believers not kill them. Oh and yes the pope is the Antichrist by the way (for those of you who haven't studied Daniel).
"God will not fulfill your prayers."
That's not what he says in the bible. Did he tell you differently? Maybe you should write an addendum.
"You must try to convert the non believers..."
Actually...no, you don't have to.
I think that either GD is the Lionly Lamb of God, or that they have been drinking from the same water source.
With each passing day G-D losses more and more of his sanity and relevance. Just exactly how the world should be.
God is irrelevant because man is changing and is employing education. I love this world for this simple fact alone.
'calls for a new global economic authority that could impose penalties on member states as a “way of ensuring that they possess efficient markets'
Actually as long as that authority was not religious in any way (ie unbiased) Say an atheist, then it would be good to have an over seeing authority.
If it were me, I'd first stop all monies going to the church itself. The money would be given from applications of the church as to who best requires it, generally the poor of course.
Then checks would be sent out to the church in the name of that 'poor' individual or group, so as they could 100% get it.
Another good reason not to have the church middle business man in the equation.
My understanding is there is a lot of money going to the church itself, and never reaching anyone of need except in very low percentages.
We need an authority to stop the churches benefiting from other peoples good will, and an over seeing, non religious, authority would definitely be a good idea.
Why, its actually possible that some or most of the chain of franchise churches could even close down to gain more money to help the poor, this is a win win situation for all.
So you long for the days of all those robust and oh so fair command economies of the Soviet bloc? Yep, those central authorities really work great. Mugabe in Zimbabwe commanded fairness in the allocation of assets there and, now enough, now the whole country is desti-ture!
The pope and his gang of cardinals believe in the sort of centralized power that brought us such delights as the dark ages.
The Catholic church has enough money and property to bail out the whole world. Let's start taxing them, too, before we have another inquisition. Was I insulting the Catholics? Aw, no, it was just a joke.
he dranked the holy wine as a alterboy.
He got donked in pooper as an alterboy
'Extreme edge of individulism'- maybe that is what could be interpreted as a justification for taxing Greed?
I'm so glad to hear that he's catholic. Perhaps Rep. Ryan could explain how his devout belief would have helped the countless senior citizens he would have had kicked out of their nursing homes this winter in the fiscal amendments he proposed a short time ago. Doing unto others, Mr. Ryan??? In a few short decades, you will be a senior citizen, too.
god has nothing to do with anything. get over it or prove the existence!
Why don't you prove he doesn't exist?
Wow, Joxer.. really? I mean, you really think that poorly of your god as to demand that atheists prove he does not exist? The burden of proof on anything is on the people who claim that something exists, not on those who do not believe. We gain nothing by attempting to do your job. We know that god is a myth, why would we need to prove that which is unprovable? Just wondering.
So, Joxer, what proof do you actually need that some invisible ent-ity whose only alleged manifest acts occur nowhere except on the pages of some ancient texts is indeed simply the central character in a book of tall tales and fables and, as such, is plainly as ficti-tious as Paul Bunyon?
Or are you discussing the possible existence of some divine ent-ity or other that may or may not be somehow implicated in the origin of all existence and who may or may not be even remotely similar to Yahweh in character an att-itude?
Seriously, Joxer? Do expect that people can prove a negative? If so, prove to me that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not the being in charge in the universe.
When you have religion in your mind – you have lost your reasoning ability.
As proof – look at Joxer.
Joxer must be new to debate. One can't prove a negative, Joxer. You cannot PROVE that Santa Claus doesn't exist.
Without a think tank that bases its foundation on scriptures, financial and monetary systems are destined for failure.
-Economic theology 101
*Whose* scriptures? There are thousands. Oh...you meant *your Christian* scriptures. How silly of me to even wonder.
We finally get rid of the communist command economies and now people are advocating for Christian command economies. The authoritarian minded just can't sit still till they have the power to bring all economic progress to a grinding halt.
Meanwhile. while the left are protesting the genuinely appalling excesses of Wall Street and other powerful financial inst-itutions in this country, they are ignoring the fact that Europe's debt crisis stems largely from the excesses of cradle to grave socialism run amok. It's time for some creative new thinking. Old models are failing us. But the model that has failed most spectacularly is the sort of centralized authority that the pope is advocating. Fortunately, very few people generally care what the pope has to say in these impotent wailings called encyclicals and similar docu-ments. But there is always grave danger in times of crisis that people will wish into existence some "superhero" agency that'll beat up on the bad guys real and imagined and that that agency will turn out to be the worst of the bad guys, and will also be much harder to combat due to all the power granted it by people in a panic.