Posted on 08/25/2012 6:41:26 AM PDT by marshmallow
For many on the left, Paul Ryan is a menace, the very embodiment of cold, indifferent Republicanism, and for many on the right, he is a knight in shining armor, a God-fearing advocate of a principled conservatism.
Mitt Romney's choice of Ryan as running mate has already triggered the worst kind of exaggerated hoo-hah on both sides of the political debate. What is most interesting, from my perspective, is that Ryan, a devout Catholic, has claimed the social doctrine of the Church as the principal inspiration for his policies. Whether you stand with First Things and affirm that such a claim is coherent or with Commonweal and affirm that it is absurd, Ryan's assertion prompts a healthy thinking-through of Catholic social teaching in the present economic and political context.
Ryan himself has correctly identified two principles as foundational for Catholic social thought, namely subsidiarity and solidarity. The first, implied throughout the whole of Catholic social theory but given clearest expression in Pope Pius XI's encyclical Quadragesimo Anno, is that in the adjudication of matters political and economic, a preferential option should be given to the more local level of authority.
For example, when seeking to solve a traffic-flow issue in a suburb, appeal should be made to the municipal authority and not to the governor, even less to the Congress or the President. Only when a satisfactory solution is not achieved by the local government should one move to the next highest level of authority, etc. This principle by no means calls into question the legitimacy of an over-arching federal power (something you sense in the more extreme advocates of the Tea Party), but it does indeed involve a prejudice in favor of the local. The principle of subsidiarity is implied in much of the "small is beautiful" movement as.........
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearreligion.org ...
namely subsidiarity
God Bless him, I hope it becomes part of the campaign. Up to Romney of course.
Commonweal has not been a *Catholic* publication for a LONG time.
Catholics and Mormons might not be real Christians, but that’s still 10x better than voting for a Muslim
why hasn’t Biden been excommicated by now? Republicans have 2 good men and Democrats have mafia man and a thug.
Catholics are real Christians.
Mormons - not so much.
Thanks for allowing me to clear that up for ya.
Catholics and Mormons might not be real Christians
Yeah I guess when Jesus Said Peter upon this Rock I build my Church it will prevail until the end of time and the Gates of Hell... somehow some spinoff is truer than the Church Christ himself founded. hahaha You can Thank the Catholic Church for your Bible... why you Took 7 Books out I’ll never know!
I see you’re new here.
The Catholic Church was founded by a man named Christ, so I guess it’s a Christian church.
You poor ignorant student of Christianity, history and truth.
“Bless your heart.”
Catholics are the original Christians. We have the fullness of Truth whereas other Christian denominations only have some of the Truth.
Could you provide a source showing that Catholics are not Christians?
Peter is the Rock upon which Jesus founded His Church. Jesus says that even the powers of Hell will not prevail against His Church. Our Catholic Popes are his successors. It is in the Bible.
I think *derpmountain* must has been locked in a gym locker at the local high school, too long.
Oops. Failed to ping Derp.
PLEASE DO NOT FEED TROLLS
The first instance that historians have found of someone referring to the "Catholic Church" is in Ignatius of Antioch's Letter to the Smyrneans, where he writes, "Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains [i.e., a presbyter]. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."
This was written very early in the first century AD.
The irony being that you yourself are a troll.
Shouldn’t you be flossing your tooth?
Second century, ~107 AD.
That was a bizarre thing to claim, the absurdity of if it is just amazing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.