Biden, Ryan discuss Catholic faith, abortion in VP debate
CWN – October 12, 2012
www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=15885
Towards the end of the debate between Vice President Joseph Biden and Republican candidate Paul Ryan, moderator Martha Raddatz asked:
This debate is, indeed, historic. We have two Catholic candidates, first time, on a stage such as this. And I would like to ask you both to tell me what role your religion has played in your own personal views on abortion.
Please talk about how you came to that decision. Talk about how your religion played a part in that. And, please, this is such an emotional issue for so many people in this country … please talk personally about this, if you could.
Ryan responded:
I don’t see how a person can separate their public life from their private life or from their faith. Our faith informs us in everything we do. My faith informs me about how to take care of the vulnerable, of how to make sure that people have a chance in life.
Now, you want to ask basically why I’m pro-life? It’s not simply because of my Catholic faith. That’s a factor, of course. But it’s also because of reason and science.
You know, I think about 10 1/2 years ago, my wife Janna and I went to Mercy Hospital in Janesville where I was born, for our seven week ultrasound for our firstborn child, and we saw that heartbeat. A little baby was in the shape of a bean. And to this day, we have nicknamed our firstborn child Liza, “Bean.” Now I believe that life begins at conception.
That’s why – those are the reasons why I’m pro-life. Now I understand this is a difficult issue, and I respect people who don’t agree with me on this, but the policy of a Romney administration will be to oppose abortions with the exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother. What troubles me more is how this administration has handled all of these issues. Look at what they’re doing through Obamacare with respect to assaulting the religious liberties of this country. They’re infringing upon our first freedom, the freedom of religion, by infringing on Catholic charities, Catholic churches, Catholic hospitals.
Our Church should not have to sue our federal government to maintain their religious liberties. And with respect to abortion, the Democratic Party used to say they wanted it to be safe, legal and rare. Now they support it without restriction and with taxpayer funding. Taxpayer funding in Obamacare, taxpayer funding with foreign aid. The vice president himself went to China and said that he sympathized and wouldn’t second guess their one child policy of forced abortions and sterilizations. That to me is pretty extreme.
Biden replied:
My religion defines who I am, and I’ve been a practicing Catholic my whole life. And has particularly informed my social doctrine. The Catholic social doctrine talks about taking care of those who – who can’t take care of themselves, people who need help.
With regard to – with regard to abortion, I accept my Church’s position on abortion as a – what we call a de fide doctrine. Life begins at conception in the Church’s judgment. I accept it in my personal life.
But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews, and I just refuse to impose that on others, unlike my friend here, the – the congressman. I – I do not believe that we have a right to tell other people that – women they can’t control their body. It’s a decision between them and their doctor. In my view and the Supreme Court, I’m not going to interfere with that.
With regard to the assault on the Catholic Church, let me make it absolutely clear, no religious institution, Catholic or otherwise, including Catholic social services, Georgetown Hospital, Mercy Hospital, any hospital, none has to either refer contraception, none has to pay for contraception, none has to be a vehicle to get contraception in any insurance policy they provide. That is a fact.
That is a fact. Now with regard to the way in which the – we differ, my friend says that he – well I guess he accepts Governor Romney’s position now, because in the past he has argued that there was – there’s rape and forcible rape. He’s argued that in the case of rape or incest, it was still – it would be a crime to engage in having an abortion. I just fundamentally disagree with my friend.
The discussion continued:
RYAN: All I’m saying is, if you believe that life begins at conception, that, therefore, doesn’t change the definition of life. That’s a principle. The policy of a Romney administration is to oppose abortion with exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother.
Now, I’ve got to take issue with the Catholic Church and religious liberty.
BIDEN: You have on the issue…
RYAN: … why would they keep – why would they keep suing you? It’s a distinction without a difference.
RADDATZ: I want to go back to the abortion question here. If the Romney-Ryan ticket is elected, should those who believe that abortion should remain legal be worried?
RYAN: We don’t think that unelected judges should make this decision; that people through their elected representatives in reaching a consensus in society through the democratic process should make this determination.
BIDEN: The court – the next president will get one or two Supreme Court nominees. That’s how close Roe v. Wade is. Just ask yourself, with Robert Bork being the chief adviser on the court for – for Mr. Romney, who do you think he’s likely to appoint? Do you think he’s likely to appoint someone like Scalia or someone else on the court far right that would outlaw (inaudible) – outlaw abortion? I suspect that would happen. I guarantee you, that will not happen. We picked two people. We pick people who are open-minded. They’ve been good justices. So keep an eye on the Supreme Court…
RYAN: Was there a litmus test on them?
BIDEN: There was no litmus test. We picked people who had an open mind; did not come with an agenda.
Biden/Ryan clash over abortion, HHS birth control mandate in VP debate
by John Jalsevac
www.lifesitenews.com/news/biden-ryan-clash-over-abortion-hhs-birth-control-mandate-in-vp-debate
October 11, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Vice President Joe Biden and Congressman Paul Ryan went head-to-head on the issue of abortion during tonight’s vice presidential debate – the first and only of the 2012 election season, and the first VP debate in U.S. history to feature two Catholics – giving very different answers.
An hour and twenty minutes into a debate that focused primarily on the economy and foreign policy in the Middle East, moderator Martha Raddatz asked the pair to explain how their Catholic faith has influenced their views on abortion.
Towards the end of a sometimes tense, and often animated debate, discussion turned to the issue of abortion.
“I believe life begins at conception,” said Ryan, the first to speak, who explained that while his faith is important to his pro-life views, “reason and science” have also played a part.
The Congressman described seeing his first born child, Liza, on an ultrasound screen ten years ago, before adding that he feels abortion is a “difficult” issue, and that he “respects” people with different positions.
“But,” he continued, “the policy of a Romney administration will be to oppose abortion with the exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother.”
Ryan also slammed Biden for the Obama administration’s HHS mandate, which requires all employers, including religious employers, to provide health insurance that pays for contraception, sterilization, and abortifacient drugs.
“Our churches should not have to sue the federal government to maintain their religious liberties,” said Ryan.
The Republican candidate also pointed out that that the Democratic Party recently changed its platform to support abortion on demand with taxpayer funding, adding that the Obama administration is already providing such funding for abortion in Obamacare and foreign aid.
Ryan also took Biden to task for a controversial statement he made during a visit to China last year, in which the vice president assured his Chinese listeners that he wouldn’t “second guess” their country’s brutal one child policy, under which forced abortions and sterilizations are routine.
Vice President Biden responded, arguing that while in his “personal life” he accepts the Catholic Church’s teaching that life begins at conception, “I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians, and Muslims and and Jews…I just refuse to do that, unlike my friend here.”
“I do not believe that we have a right to tell other people, women that they cannot control their body. It’s a decision between them and their doctor in my view, and the Supreme Court,” he said.
On the issue of the HHS mandate and its attack on religious liberty, Biden simply flat-out denied that the mandate would force Catholic institutions to pay for contraception.
No Catholic institution “has to either refer for contraception, none has to pay for contraception, none has to be a vehicle to get contraception in any insurance policy they provide, that is a fact,” he declared in a remark that drew a strong rebuke from one of the country’s top pro-life organizations.
“Vice President Biden grossly misled the viewers and brushed over legitimate objections by people of all faiths to this administration’s unprecedented assault on religious organizations and individuals,” said Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser in a statement issued immediately following the debate. “The HHS preventative services mandate forces Americans of faith and conscience to violate their beliefs and be directly responsible for paying for insurance programs which cover abortion-inducing drugs. Coverage for such drugs is not preventative women’s healthcare and the vice president’s response tonight demonstrated a shocking disregard for our first freedom.”
Biden also attacked Ryan for past statements supporting the right to life of the unborn in all cases, including rape and incest, while suggesting that Ryan had flip-flopped. “I guess he accepts Gov. Romney’s position now, because in the past he’s argued that there’s rape and forcible rape, in the case of rape and incest it would still be a crime to engage in abortion. I just fundamentally disagree with my friend.”
The answers provided no great surprises on either count, given Biden’s lengthy history of public support for abortion, and Ryan’s equally solid reputation for standing by his pro-life values.
Nancy Keenan of NARAL Pro-Choice America immediately issued a statement following the debate condemning Ryan’s pro-life views. “Let me be clear: The Romney-Ryan ticket is extremely dangerous to women’s health and Americans should be very concerned about the future of women’s health and rights if Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan win on November 6,” said Keenan.
Romney’s selection of Ryan has helped boost Romney’s standing with his party’s social conservatives, with numerous pro-life groups applauding the choice.
Over 14 years in Washington, Ryan earned a 100 percent pro-life voting record with the National Right to Life Committee. He voted to affirm that life begins at conception, to grant the unborn 14th Amendment status, to ban partial birth abortion, to end federal funding of Planned Parenthood, and to bar abortion coverage from federal health care plans.
In 2010, he vowed, “I’m never going to not vote pro-life.”
Paul Ryan: I’m Strongly Pro-Life; Biden: I’m a Pro-Abortion Catholic
by Steven Ertelt | LifeNews.com | 10/11/12
www.lifenews.com/2012/10/11/paul-ryan-im-strongly-pro-life-biden-im-a-pro-abortion-catholic/
Vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan made a strong pro-life case against abortion during the Vice-Presidential debate on Thursday night.
During a debate marked by Vice President Joe Biden’s snark and interrupting, Ryan calmly and cooly laid out why he takes a pro-life position and how his Catholic faith has helped guide him to a place where he opposes abortion.
“I don’t see how a person can separate their public life from their private life or from their faith. Our faith informs us in everything we do. My faith informs me about how to take care of the vulnerable, of how to make sure that people have a chance in life,” Ryan said. “Now, you want to ask basically why I’m pro-life? It’s not simply because of my Catholic faith. That’s a factor, of course. But it’s also because of reason and science.”
“You know, I think about 10 1/2 years ago, my wife Janna and I went to Mercy Hospital in Janesville where I was born, for our seven week ultrasound for our firstborn child, and we saw that heartbeat. A little baby was in the shape of a bean. And to this day, we have nicknamed our firstborn child Liza, “Bean.” Now I believe that life begins at conception,” Ryan continued.
“That’s why — those are the reasons why I’m pro-life. Now I understand this is a difficult issue, and I respect people who don’t agree with me on this, but the policy of a Romney administration will be to oppose abortions with the exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother,” Ryan said.
When it comes to abortion, Ryan said “the Democratic Party used to say they wanted it to be safe, legal and rare. Now they support it without restriction and with taxpayer funding. Taxpayer funding in Obamacare, taxpayer funding with foreign aid. The vice president himself went to China and said that he sympathized and wouldn’t second guess their one child policy of forced abortions and sterilizations. That to me is pretty extreme.”
During his response, Vice President Biden essentially laid out the pro-life position of the Catholic Church, of which he is a member, and then he proceeded to talk about how he violates it.
“My religion defines who I am, and I’ve been a practicing Catholic my whole life. And has particularly informed my social doctrine. The Catholic social doctrine talks about taking care of those who — who can’t take care of themselves, people who need help. With regard to — with regard to abortion, I accept my church’s position on abortion as a — what we call a (inaudible) doctrine. Life begins at conception in the church’s judgment. I accept it in my personal life,” Biden said.
“But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews, and I just refuse to impose that on others, unlike my friend here, the — the congressman. I — I do not believe that we have a right to tell other people that — women they can’t control their body,” Biden continued. “It’s a decision between them and their doctor. In my view and the Supreme Court, I’m not going to interfere with that.”
Later, Ryan laid out his pro-life views further.
“We don’t think that unelected judges should make this decision; that people through their elected representatives in reaching a consensus in society through the democratic process should make this determination,” he said.
Biden talked about the closeness of the Supreme Court on the issue of abortion and knocked Governor Romney for having pro-life former Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork as his judicial advisor.
“The court — the next president will get one or two Supreme Court nominees. That’s how close Roe v. Wade is. Just ask yourself, with Robert Bork being the chief adviser on the court for — for Mr. Romney, who do you think he’s likely to appoint? Do you think he’s likely to appoint someone like Scalia or someone else on the court far right that would outlaw (inaudible) — outlaw abortion? I suspect that would happen,” Biden said. “I guarantee you, that will not happen. We picked two people. We pick people who are open-minded. They’ve been good justices. So keep an eye on the Supreme Court.”
Ryan to Biden: If You’re Protecting Catholics, Why Are They Suing You?
by Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 10/11/12
www.lifenews.com/2012/10/11/ryan-to-biden-if-youre-protecting-catholics-why-are-they-suing-you/
Paul Ryan had perhaps the question of the night when he challenged pro-abortion Vice President Joe Biden on the issue of the HHS mandate that compels them to pay for abortion-causing drugs.
During the debate, Ryan brought up the controversial mandate that pro-life groups oppose.
“What troubles me more is how this administration has handled all of these issues. Look at what they’re doing through Obamacare with respect to assaulting the religious liberties of this country. They’re infringing upon our first freedom, the freedom of religion, by infringing on Catholic charities, Catholic churches, Catholic hospitals,” he explained. “Our church should not have to sue our federal government to maintain their religious liberties.”
Biden try to explain away the Obama administration’s pro-abortion assault on Catholics, evangelicals and other religious groups and businesses.
“With regard to the assault on the Catholic church, let me make it absolutely clear, no religious institution, Catholic or otherwise, including Catholic Social Services, Georgetown Hospital, Mercy Hospital, any hospital, none has to either refer contraception, none has to pay for contraception, none has to be a vehicle to get contraception in any insurance policy they provide. That is a fact,” Biden falsely claimed.
“Now, I’ve got to take issue with the Catholic church and religious liberty,” Ryan retorted. “Why would they keep — why would they keep suing you? It’s a distinction without a difference.”
The mandate compels religious employers to pay for and refer women for abortion-causing drugs, birth control, contraception and sterilizations.
The mandate has drawn significant opposition from Catholic, Protestant and evangelical groups, pro-life organizations and others concerned that it includes no conscience protections for employers that don’t want to be required to pay for or refer women for drugs that end life and violate their faith.
Americans United for Life called the mandate a “payout for the abortion industry.”
“Last year, the Obama Administration’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), under the clear influence of Planned Parenthood, announced that it was defining the “preventive services” provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to include “all FDA approved contraceptives.” As AUL has repeatedly documented, adopting such a broad definition forces private health insurance plans to fully-cover, without a co-pay, life-ending drugs and devices, including ella, an abortion-inducing drug,” it said.
“Despite the knowledge that mandated coverage for a drug like ella violates the religious beliefs and moral principles of many Americans, the Obama Administration has refused to offer sufficient solutions to a serious problem. Putting its loyalty to the abortion industry above all else, HHS has not budged,” it said. “Today, the pay-out to the abortion business begins.”
AUL indicates that, by design, the mandate has a “rolling” start. With each passing month, more plans will be infected with forced coverage for life-ending drugs and devices. One year from today, the so-called “safe harbor” for certain religious non-profit organizations expires.
At that point, employers will begin facing heavy fines that could cause them major financial problems. Organizations that refuse to comply could be fined enormous amounts of money, as much as $100 per day per employee.
The mandate adversely affects three categories of businesses and organizations in different ways and the Catholic Association spells them out:
Category 1: For-Profit Employers
For-profit private employers do not qualify for the one-year safe harbor and are thus completely unprotected as of August 1. This is especially harmful to small and family-owned businesses that tend to have boutique or custom insurance plans to conform to religious or value-oriented workplace cultures. Many businesses are suing the Obama administration seeking immediate relief from the August 1 deadline. The penalty for non-compliance is $100 per day, per employee. For the Newland family business, the fines would add up to millions of dollars per year.
Category 2: Groups in Limbo
Some employers do not yet know if they qualify for the safe harbor. They may only object to some but not all of the services – for example, the evangelical college Wheaton, which has also filed suit against the Administration, objects to abortion-causing drugs but not contraception. These employers are left completely in the dark as to what will happen to them on August 1 and whether or not they will be slapped with crippling fines.
Category 3: Religiously Affiliated Employers
Objecting employers with a religious affiliation are essentially left with one year to scramble. The so-called accommodation, which has not been implemented, was widely rejected as an accounting gimmick. Even Sister Carol Keehan, the president and CEO of the Catholic Health Association (and a supporter of the President’s health care plan), originally supported the accommodation but after closer examination, called it unacceptable and unworkable. These religious entities are left with no option but to wait one more year before they have to begin violating the teachings of their faith or pay severe fines.
The only reason Biden, Pelosi, Sebelious and the like can call themselves “Catholic’” is there is no rebuke from the bishops or pulpits on their pro-abortion, pro-homosexuality stands and no enforcement of church law that should deny the whole pack of them communion.
They are not really Catholic and should not be allowed to make such bogus public statements without public rebuke!
Mr. Ryan is NOT Catholic, he can call himself anything he chooses, but being willing to murder a child conceived in tragic circumstances nullifies any claim of Catholicism. Mr. Biden, well we’ve known that for years.
Do Not Be Deceived By Those Who Call Themselves “Pro-Life” When They Are Not This at All
From the American Life League website (Communique, May 21, 2004.)
Catholics who enable phony pro-life careerist politicians have a grave culpability on their souls for their participation in a cynical political game calculated to achieve only one thing: electoral survival and thus the retention of raw political power. When are pro-life Catholics going to realize the following:
We need to plant the seeds for the Catholicization of the United States of America.
We must think and speak and act as Catholics at all times.
No one who supports one abortion under cover of law is pro-life.
It is unjust and misleading to call a politician who supports even one abortion under cover of law as being “pro-life.”
No one who supports contraception and/or funding for same is pro-life or can be called “pro-life.”
No one who supports sex-instruction (under any of its various guises) and/or funding for same can be called “pro-life.”
No one who supports “civil unions” while opposing sodomite marriages is pro-family or can be called “pro-family.”
No one who supports a candidate for public office who supports abortion on demand or who is simply less pro-abortion than other candidates is pro-life or is interested in doing anything substantive to restore complete legal protection to all innocent human life from the first moment of fertilization through all subsequent stages until natural death.
Frustration with Ryan [less] and Biden [more]
By Dr. Jeff Mirus | October 12, 2012
www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=1018
It was frustrating to hear both Catholic Vice Presidential candidates botch the question of the relationship of abortion to their Catholic Faith in the debates. Biden, of course, simply repeated the same canards that faithless Catholics have always used to justify being pro-abortion. Ryan’s remarks were far more sound, but in the end he too foundered on the rocks of inconsistency and lost opportunity.
Biden’s argument that he accepts the Church’s teaching that life begins at conception but refuses to impose that view on others is obviously as disingenuous now as it was when it was first introduced over a generation ago. This argument turns abortion into a purely religious issue, asserting that the evil of abortion can be known only through Revelation, which would mean that avoidance of abortion cannot be required of unbelievers—and this manner of framing the quesiton is false. Moreover, the argument does not distinguish between a government which fails to punish an evil and a government which actively works to make an evil more widespread, including proclaiming it a right and coercing others into supporting and extending it.
Biden even slipped into the usual contradictions, admitting that the child in the womb is a separate person, yet framing the issue in terms of a woman’s right to control her own body. That this line of argument—a tissue of self-serving inconsistencies—should continue to provide a safe political haven is an irrefutable testimony to our fallen nature.
But sadly Ryan also left himself open to criticism. He rightly stressed that we know abortion is wrong through reason. He did not use the term natural law, but his argument makes sense only in light of natural law, for he asserted first that science establishes that the fetus is a human being and second that taking the life of an innocent human being is morally wrong. But given that the Republican ticket would permit abortion in cases of rape, incest and to save the life of the mother, Ryan failed utterly to make the distinctions necessary to salvage what otherwise appears to be a glaringly inconsistent position.
The lack of moral clarity actually concerns me here more than the policy, which is old news. Ryan was on the right track with his unnamed appeal to the natural law, but he failed to argue that it is precisely this natural human perception of the moral order which makes it perfectly moral for government to make laws which restrict even those evils that some citizens cannot (or will not) admit—insofar as a proposed restriction is consistent with government’s obligation to secure the common good. Instead, Ryan reduced the argument to a claim that the Republican position was moderate as compared with the extremism of the Democrats. That may be a politically effective point, yet on Ryan’s own reading, it is morally wrong for a government to favor abortion under any circumstances.
To come at this from a slightly different direction, Ryan was also on the right track in protesting the Obama Administration’s violations of religious liberty. But again, the effectiveness of these remarks was vitiated by his failure to make the necessary moral distinction between a government choosing not to punish a violation of the natural law and a government promoting a violation of the natural law. For with respect to abortion, the issue is not primarily a question of religious liberty. The argument from religious liberty, while valid, is introduced chiefly because it might work under the Constitution of the United States even in courts which no longer recognize the natural law.
The real truth of the matter is that the Republican position, even if one does not agree with it, may be argued in a morally coherent way. Indeed, if the incidence of abortion is ever to be reduced, it is absolutely vital to argue about this matter in a morally coherent way. For Ryan’s implication that it is always wrong for government to favor abortion does not exclude the possibility of government choosing not to restrict and punish it in particular circumstances. This case must be made to distinguish a so-called right to abortion, or even a requirement for abortion (positions which are always false and evil), from governmental toleration of abortion, which may, like toleration of other evils, be justifiable on prudential grounds.
Thus the only unconfused position on this question—and the argument Ryan should have made—runs as follows:
1.Abortion is the taking of an innocent human life, which we know is immoral by reason through the natural law;
2.Adherence to the natural law, unlike adherence to truths known only by Faith, is morally binding on all persons and may be justly required of them by government when necessary for the common good;
3.This, and only this, justifies government prohibition and punishment of naturally recognized evils such as fraud, theft, assault, sexual abuse, and murder;
4.However, it is not always best for government to prohibit and punish particular violations of the natural law;
5.Whether or not to do so is a matter of the legitimate purposes of government (which clearly encompass the prevention of murder) and prudence, which is necessary to determine whether government can act effectively and without doing more harm than good;
6.Government, therefore, may choose not to restrict or punish some moral evils which are otherwise within its legitimate scope;
7.But in any case government must never—never—encourage or promote these evils, give them the status of rights, or coerce people into supporting them.
The protection of the lives of those under its jurisdiction from attack, including unborn children, is clearly the first purpose of government. For this reason, it is also a sine qua non of its legitimacy. It ought to be extremely unusual, then, for any competent government to admit that it does not intend to do everything in its power to diminish a particular class of murders. Nonetheless, the preceding argument is not only sound but essential for a coherent discussion of this issue.
Now it may be that it is not possible to win a Presidential election in America by insisting on the truth of the second point in this argument. Too many people may fear that, given the right circumstances, a natural law advocate might deem it prudent to restrict and/or punish them for their favorite vices. The potential restriction of pornography and contraception, for example, terrifies huge portions of the American electorate. Nonetheless, when these questions are raised, they must be answered truthfully and coherently. The failure to do so contributes to the confusion of the electorate, as well as making it far more difficult for those who wish to do what is right to figure out how they should cast their votes.
One Vice Presidential candidate did better than the other on this issue, but neither articulated a coherent moral and civic understanding of faith, reason, abortion and the public order.
On EEEEEWWWWW!TN Radio’s “Spastic Dancers” call-in show today a woman asked how Ryan can receive Communion after what he said last night in the debate.
Answer? Predictable: JPII said we can vote for the lesser of two evils so GO Ryan! Hey, gang, is that totally awesome or what?
To be fair, the anwer feller did say that Ryan’s position contradicted the teaching of the Church regarding rape, incest and life of the mother. And, actually, quoting Santo Sub is something even Spastic Dancers can’t be held responsible for, either. They are just so easy to tease, however…..
Substance and smirks
Deal Hudson Fri Oct 12, 2012
Co-authored with Deacon Keith Fournier
www.lifesitenews.com/news/substance-and-smirks
DANVILLE, KY (Catholic Online) – Thursday evening’s debate between the vice presidential candidates was historic in the history of American politics: Never before have both vice presidential candidates professed membership in the Catholic Church and claimed with pride the name Catholic as an accurate description of their Christian faith.
Yes, both Ryan and Biden profess the Catholic faith. However, there is a certain irony in the timing of their debate. On the day when Pope Benedict XVI commemorated the 50th anniversary of the Second Vatican Council – and presided over the opening of the Year of Faith – the two Catholic participants in this political debate show the stark contrast right within the Catholic Church which the events in Rome addressed.
There are Catholics like Joe Biden who claim to follow what is too often called the “spirit” of Vatican II, while rejecting the very foundations that important Council proclaimed. Then, there are others, like Paul Ryan, who grasp the implications of what it means to infuse the values informed by their Catholic faith into their political participation on fundamental moral issues such as the Right to life.
Paul Ryan’s Catholic faith grew and matured during the pontificate of Blessed John Paul II. Congressman Ryan was only eight years old when John Paul II assumed the chair of St. Peter and 35 years old when the Pope died at age 84. Even those who disagree with him on some of his positions acknowledge his sincere effort to be morally coherent.
Vice President Biden, like many Catholic politicians of his generation, succumbed to the pressure of the secularist culture, switching positions on foundational issues and compromising the very teaching of His Church. This is most evident in his retreat from the defense of the Right to Life and his rejection of the truth about marriage and family.
Joe Biden promotes the profane notion that there is a “right” to abortion when every abortion violates the Natural Law Right to Life. He recently endorsed the oxymoron of “same-sex marriage”, rejecting the clear teaching of His Church as rooted in the Natural Law. While claiming, as he did in tonight’s debate, that he endorses the “social doctrine of the Catholic Church” he directly dissents from it and then tries to use it to his political advantage by claiming he follows this same “social doctrine”.
Rep. Paul Ryan has faithfully represented the teaching of Blessed John Paul II in his historic encyclical entitled The Gospel of Life, the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the clear teaching of the magisterium, the teaching office, of the Catholic Church. Though Ryan made his reputation as an expert in economics and budgetary planning, his voting record on the settled moral issues contained within the Social Teaching of the Catholic Church is entirely faithful.
During the debate he made it clear that he understands that what the Catholic Church proclaims about the dignity of every human life is not simply a “religious” position. Rather, it is confirmed by reason and science. His anecdotal story of how he and his wife, after viewing an early sonogram of their daughter, were led them to nickname her “bean” was compellingly presented. Biden seemed to squirm in his chair and stopped smirking for a while.
The simplest way to summarize the difference between Biden and Ryan is this: Biden considers all political issues of equal importance. He ignores the distinction between the moral issues concerning intrinsic evils – such as procured abortion – and those which involve the exercise of prudential judgment, meaning Catholics of good will can come to different conclusions in the application of principles, such as economic applications.
Ryan accepts Catholic teaching that the consideration of intrinsic evils must take priority over all other issues, whether the area considered is immigration, national security, or health care reform. Biden rejects this primacy and, while engaging in open dissent from his Church, clothes himself in the label Catholic as a part of his effort to present himself as some kind of “middle class champion”.
We have both commented previously on the differences between the vice presidential candidates concerning their understanding of the obligations of their faith and its undeniable call to moral coherence in their public service. The faceoff between Biden and Ryan on national television was our first opportunity to look more deeply at the differences between these two men in their demeanor or carriage and the manner in which they present their positions. This says a lot about the character and capacity of a leader.
What immediately struck both of us was the contrast between Ryan’s civility and Biden’s attempt to distract the audience with childish facial expressions and head-shaking. His smile often devolved into a smirk and his incessant reference to his debate interlocutor as “friend” was condescending and seemed arrogant.
Ryan, the younger man, never took the older man’s bait. He never descended into unpleasant mugging for the camera. Ryan came across as courteous, kind, smart, and very well prepared. Biden, on the other hand, acted like he was ready for a verbal brawl and looking for every opportunity to strike.
Biden was so unpleasant that, at times, he gave away one of his most winning qualities—he’s always seemed a likable guy—even to those who disagree with him politically. He did, however, have his good moments, such as when he pointed out that Ryan had requested money from the stimulus package for his constituents.
Ryan’s best moments were his clear responses to questions like the one concerning the future of social security—when Ryan calls something an “indisputable fact” his expertise, especially in economic matters, is obvious. Biden’s response was to ignore the coming bankruptcy of the program, look at the camera directly, and ask “seniors” to remember the level of benefits they are receiving.
Who is more compassionate? The man who wants to avoid the financial train wreck that is inevitable for both Social Security and Medicare, or the man who ignores what lies in the future, a future that will be faced by our children and grandchildren. This is a future that will not only have to deal with the possible loss of the “safety net” but also a crushing national debt that has tripled since the Obama/Biden ticket was elected.
It didn’t help, by the way, that the moderator Martha Raddatz cut Ryan off in the middle of several of his best comments, unlike Jim Lehrer, the moderator of the previous debate, who was extremely fair. Raddatz did not interrupt Biden a single time that we can recall.
When Ryan pointedly asked Raddatz, “So you want to get into defense now?” it was an overdue pushback. And she didn’t allow Ryan to elaborate on the budgetary issue she raised while letting Biden drone on and on.
At certain points in the debate, Raddatz completely lost control, allowed Biden to filibuster and, to his detriment, display a lack of manners. It was interesting to see the comparison of the number of minutes each of them had to speak after Biden’s complaint during his closing statement. In fact, he had more time than Ryan.
Raddatz, however, should be thanked for her question about the two candidates Catholic faith and abortion; she gave Catholic voters a chance to watch and hear each candidate talk about what matters most. Ryan’s answer was nearly perfect, referring not merely to the teaching of the Church but, as mentioned above, to the evidence of science and reason, as well as the personal experience of his family.
Biden gave the predictable answer of the Catholics in public life who have compromised on truth. He “refuses to impose” his personal religious beliefs on the American people—the classic Drinan-Kennedy-Cuomo-Pelosi dance step. Biden further denied the violation of religious liberty caused by the HHS mandate and Raddatz cut Ryan off when he asked Biden why so many Catholic institutions were suing the Obama administration over the mandate.
Biden’s brief excursus on the Supreme Court, his direct slap at Justice Scalia, further betrayed his sense of moral and intellectual superiority—“we are open-minded”—to conservatives in general and pro-lifers in particular. This embedded attitude is the source of the arrogance that continually emanates from the loftiness of the Obama/Biden message.
In fact, if any strong impression is left by this debate it is the contrast between arrogance and courtesy, between empty accusation and rational explanation, between religious duplicity and faithfulness.
Biden did himself no favors tonight, and Ryan showed himself to be a man worthy of being elected to help lead our nation.