Another Conservative Catholic Folk Hero Implodes

Last year we were led to believe that Paul Ryan was a Catholic Political Hero of the first water. We were all morally bound to vote for his boss (and even to lie to ourselves that his boss had had a “prolife conversion”) because–the ends justifying the means and all–voting for Romney would eventually ensure that Paul Ryan would run for Prez and Save Us All. To doubt this was to hate God and babies and unmask oneself as an enemy of the Church and of all that is good and true. When it was pointed out that Ryan himself regarded enemy of God Ayn Rand as his muse (right up until his “Makers and Takers” class warfare rhetoric and Rand’s hatred of God started to cost him points) the Faithful Conservative Coalition for Missing the Obvious swung into action to declare that Rand was a diamond in the rough like Aristotle (!) and Ryan was her Aquinas: baptizing the basically good-hearted ravings of this Enemy of God and turning them into Solid Catholic Social Teaching. The substance of this analysis boiled down to “Subsidiarity is the only part of Catholic Social Teaching that matters. So screw Caesar. Up with corporate profits and if the poor be like to die they had better do it and help decrease the surplus population, as our Lord taught. All that Solidarity stuff is just another word for communism.”

Meanwhile, the great prolife Catholic hope who was Ryan made one contribution and one contribution only to the national conversation on abortion during his run for Veep: he ceased being prolife and accomodated his stance to Romney’s, agreeing to be only anti-abortion in cases where the victim could not harm his chances of gaining power. Nobly done.

And now, in the same interest of placing political gain over alleged principle, Ryan has declared himself in favor of gay adoption.

Another triumph for the Faithful Conservative Catholic Anti-Charism of Discernment.

Look. I get when people say, “It’s a crappy choice but it’s the least crappy choice.” The problem, so often, with the Faithful Conservative Catholic Anti-Charism of Discernment is that that’s not what happens. Instead, we are told that some Folk Hero is God’s Anointed and that to doubt him is to disobey God. Doubting Romney/Ryan was not doubting or disobeying God. It was common sense, now borne out–yet again–by the implosion of yet another Faithful Conservative Catholic Folk Hero. Stop trusting these people. They don’t care about you and they sure as hell do not care about children or the unborn (who can’t vote). They care about power.

  • 2hearts4life

    Mark, are you saying that Obama was the correct ‘choice?’

    • said she

      Seriously? Did your ballot only have two options?

      • 2hearts4life

        How do you come up with that question in answer to what I asked Mark Shea? Libertarian in never a choice for me if that is what you were referring to SS.
        Chill Girl!
        “Funny business, a woman’s career. The things you drop
        on your way up the ladder so you can move faster. You forget you’ll need them when you get back to being a woman.”
        “All About Eve’ Bette Davis/Margo Channing

        • said she

          My ballot had more than 3 choices. I’ve never voted libertarian.

    • Jmac

      From the last paragraph of the post:

      “Look. I get when people say, “It’s a crappy choice but it’s the least crappy
      choice.” The problem, so often, with the Faithful Conservative
      Catholic Anti-Charism of Discernment is that that’s not what happens.
      Instead, we are told that some Folk Hero is God’s Anointed and that to
      doubt him is to disobey God.”

      You may want to see a doctor about that jerking knee, my friend.

      • 2hearts4life

        I understand about Romney/Ryan being the least crappy choice. Not sure about the jerking knee comment. Oh well. Nice to be among so many Christians friends. “With friends like these…”

    • Newp Ort

      If you had the slightest acquaintance with Mark or this blog you would know this is not the case. In fact your question underlines his point that to those with little discernment if you didn’t vote Romney/Ryan you must be an Obama lovin’ baby killin’ liberal.

    • http://twitter.com/thomjwillis Thom Willis

      You must be new here.

      • 2hearts4life

        Yes, Thom, this is my first visit to this blog. I commend you on your superiority complex and am not impressed with your dismissive comment. And Yes, I do know Mark Shea’s usual stand concerning his faith which is why I asked my question. I was surprised! Maybe I should have used 15 or so exclamation marks so that all who acted like elite liberal know-it-alls would have found a less attacking way to respond to my question. (My interpretation of what I read) Therein lies the problem with any other party and their members, other than libs. They are unified liars and the rest are busy arguing among themselves about what one assumes the tone of what someone else said. That is why I asked ‘HIM’ that question. But thanks for your worldly candor. Thanks for voting!

        Congratulations to the Democrats and Young People!
        You now own it and you can’t blame Bush.
        http://www.scribd.com/doc/114462832/John-Pendog

        • chezami

          Mark Shea here. As a cursory search of my blog shows, I voted for neither major candidate since both advocated grave intrinsic evils. Google “Mark Shea” + “moral act” + voting. Not voting for Romney/Ryan does not equal voting for Obama.

          • 2hearts4life

            Thanks, Mark. my visit here has been an eye opening experience. God bless!

    • chezami

      No. As the most cursory search of my blog shows, I voted for neither major candidate since both advocate grave intrinsic evils. Google “Mark Shea” + “moral act” + voting.

      • Philip

        ….but Mark, tell us, what people did you trust when you voted, which non intrinsically evil party or candidate did you vote for? How can we, the perfectly intrinsically evil Catholic voting riffraff ever hope to become the perfectly prudent Catholic voter, as you imply you are, if you don’t tell us how you voted, or if you really did?

        • chezami

          I already told you how I voted. Now, since you have chosen to be a jackass, I will leave it to you to search archives to find the answer to that question.

  • William

    I wonder why Paul Ryan didn’t make this announcement on gay adoption when he was on EWTN last week? Why does EWTN keep having these people on?

    • Newp Ort

      Maintain the facade of those catholic bona fides as long as possible before flipping the political script to whatever’s most popular with the masses. The GOP Is moving towards gay marriage cuz they’re tired of losing and he’s getting on board.

  • Philip

    “Stop trusting these people. They don’t care about you and they sure as hell do not care about children or the unborn (who can’t vote). They care about power.”

    Fear not Mark, I place all my trust in you! You are our political savior, we place all our trust in you!

    • chezami

      Much as my Dark Lord heart quivers to hear such professions of mindless loyalty, I must decline your idolatry. Please see my secretary for your complementary swag bag in the Dark Tower front office on your way out. Thank you.

  • Dave G.

    Or they might just choose to agree to disagree, like Catholic voters do with other candidates.

  • http://www.facebook.com/taxplaya Ryan Ellis

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but the issue here has always been the Gay Mob forcing Catholic adoption agencies to adopt kids into gay couple families.

    What Ryan said was that gays should be able to adopt, which seems to me a discrete issue.

    He didn’t speak to the former, and would presumably be opposed to it.

    • http://profiles.google.com/dcs.trad David Smith

      The Church teaches that homosexual couples should not be allowed to adopt. It is not merely a matter of what Catholic adoption agencies should be forced to do:

      “Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral….”

      • HermitTalker

        I read. I disagree with him, HOWEVER. I do see from my long life experience from back then to 2013, that social services, foster care and adoptions and two-parent couples and married and single teachers and coaches are not free from flawed human nature and children are abused, murdered or emotionally scarred. Statistical studies would make the case clearer for me as a scholar.

        • http://profiles.google.com/dcs.trad David Smith

          There’s no need for statistical studies to show that allowing homosexual couples to adopt is wrong. The Church teaches that it is gravely immoral and that is that.

      • http://www.likelierthings.com/ Jon W

        I would only slightly nuance this to say that the church would say that homosexual couples should not be allowed to adopt, but there may be extreme cases in which a homosexual individual may be allowed to adopt.

        • http://profiles.google.com/dcs.trad David Smith

          True … but I don’t believe Rep. Ryan limited his comments to chaste homosexual individuals.

  • ivan_the_mad

    Heh, here’s an idea: Don’t get your social teaching second-hand (and corrupted) from Ryan, Woods, et al. Get it straight from the source, Holy Mother Church. Let the Church’s teaching be the measure, not American politics.

  • HermitTalker

    I can no longer trust your interpretations or analyses Mark. I shall wait for ETWN;s TWO with R Arroyo on Paul. Resignation of Fr Fugee since says nothing about Abp. Myers or his inside understanding of the facts. Public opinion can be a Devil’s tool as we are aware. Palm Sunday to Good Friday mob control is best example

    • http://profiles.google.com/dcs.trad David Smith

      It is not Mark’s analysis that Rep. Ryan declared himself in favor of homosexual unions and homosexual adoption. That’s a matter of public record, straight from Rep. Ryan’s mouth.

      • HermitTalker

        Mark’s interpretations and analyses was my comment. I shall search for Ryan’s comments and hope Raymond A has him back. Paul’s Jesuit testifies to Paul’s Catholic credentials, at a time some NCCCB sub-committee rapped his budget figures and a “Nun” used that to champion Obama at their Convention. We studied New York’s “yellow journalism” in J school – I call it “brown journalism today
        and it flows from many sewer systems.

        • ForsythiaTheMariner

          I read it in the news today, too. I think it was posted on The Drudge Report, but here’s a link to what Ryan said:
          http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/02/so-paul-ryan-now-supports-gay-adoptions-but-not-gay-marriage/

        • http://profiles.google.com/dcs.trad David Smith

          Finding Rep. Ryan’s comments should be easy as Mark linked to them.

          I don’t know who “Paul’s Jesuit” is who will testify to his Catholicity, but it could well be that such testimony will not be especially forthcoming now that Ryan no longer agrees with the Church on the subject of homosexual couples’ adopting. Of course, it is not unknown to see a priest supporting a political candidate despite the latter’s opposition to the teaching of the Church (we’ve seen this phenomenon before with Sen. Kennedy).

  • Newp Ort

    Ryan also said he’s always believed “a high value should be placed on” traditional marriage. As the GOP continues to morph towards support for legalizing gay marriage that statement will be helpful because he can just tack an “Although I support legalizing gay marriage…” on the front. Watch for it before 2016.

  • Catherine

    Ish…For hundred of years, orphans in the western world were raised by same-sex religious congregations (all men religious or all women religious) and the Church deemed it rightous. That system made thousands of victims but the church never apologized for that. Having young boys raised by male-only congregations, seen in the light of the present debate, should be considered as a grave sin…

    • http://www.likelierthings.com/ Jon W

      Are we seriously this incapable of making moral distinctions? It is one thing to say,

      “Life has stuck you, Orphan Jim, in a crappy situation. You have been dealt a bad hand and your mother and father are dead/lost. We are going to do the best we can for you, though this community is very poor, and so this caring society of celibate brothers are going to dedicate themselves to raising you and being the father-figure you never got to have. Maybe later on if you are blessed, someone will come into your life who will be the mother you should have had, but never go to.”

      and something entirely different to say,

      “These two men have adopted you, Orphan Jim, and will now be your fathers. There were plenty of couples with both a mother and a father who wanted and were able to raise you, but we placed you with these men because this is just as legitimate, normal, and beautiful a situation as having a mother and a father. You have two fathers. No mother. You may desire or feel the lack of a mother, but as a society we cannot endorse or affirm this desire because having two fathers is just as legitimate, normal, and beautiful a situation as having a mother and a father.”

      These are completely different situations and messages. There’s just no comparison.

  • HermitTalker

    I strenuously object to type-casting about which children are better off with which couples, given the confusion about M and F today and the fear and abuse to which many minors are subject. I have absolutely no problem with Catholic Tradition and that does not necessarily mean rejecting adoption by children who are abused if they can have a safe place to call home when so many are incapable of decent parenting skills and many are raised in single parent households when the other parent has been destructive.

    • Newp Ort

      Good point, but be aware that there’s no lack of parents willing to adopt. In fact they are lined up waiting months and months to adopt.

      • ADG

        *If* the child is a) white and b) an infant.

        • Newp Ort

          a) false
          b) kind of, not so much as before

          • http://profiles.google.com/dcs.trad David Smith

            Agreed. My wife and I attended a number of informational meetings about interracial adoption (the “demand” for white infants is very high so the wait list is very long — my guess is most such babies are placed via private adoption) and nearly all of the prospective parents were white.

  • Guest

    Your sarcasm does not at all describe what most of us who kind of like Ryan think. The Ayn Rand business is not cool, to be sure but you make his ideas sound a whole lot different than they actually are. Ayn Rand exposes what is wrong with the communist proposal, Ryan likes that about Rand. So do I. But she turns a blind eye to the cliff on the other side of the road, I do not like that. And I am not sure that it is fair to day Ryan does. You are quite confident that he does. The heat you generate with your wittiness and sarcasm does not help.

  • Thomas Hunt

    OUCH

  • HermitTalker

    I agree with adoption and fostering. Not all are called or equipped for it, same as the older age evil step mother/ mother in law and the prevalence of respectable men having wife and mistress. AS they say, one requires training and a license to cut hair but any loose cannon can fire away and make a baby.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X