What the Paul Ryan Choice Brings Into Play Among Catholic Voters

By Deal W. Hudson

Deal Hudson speaking in Des Moines [Photo by Lisa Bourne]

With the choice of Paul Ryan as Romney’s running-mate, the 2012 presidential election will be the first in U.S. history with a Roman Catholic on both sides of the ballot. The contrast between the Catholicism of Vice President Biden and Congressman Ryan perfectly represents the ongoing debate about the Catholic vote going back to the Reagan years.

Indeed, the choice between these two types of Catholic politicians could not be any more plain.

Biden is a “social justice” Catholic who claims to know how to connect with the blue-collar Democratic Catholics, like those in his home town of Scranton, PA. During four of his last five years in the Senate he received a 100% rating from NARAL. As vice president, he supported federal funding for abortion, in spite of voicing opposition to it in 2008, and the HHS mandate requiring those Catholic institutions serving the public to provide insurance coverage for contraception, including abortifacients and sterilization.

During the 2008 campaign, some of Biden’s remarks on NBC’s Meet the Press defending his position on abortion were publicly criticized by Bishops Robert C. Morlino of Madison, WI and Archbishop Charles J. Chaput then of Denver, now of Philadelphia. Bishop Morlino’s diocese, by the way, includes Paul Ryan’s hometown of Janesville, WI.

Paul Ryan, it appears, never had a “progressive” phase in the development of either his politics or his Catholic faith. From a 5th generation Wisconsin family, Ryan attended public schools, graduating in economics and political science from Miami University, OH, and developed a liking for the works of the individualist philosopher Ayn Rand during his high school years. His interest in politics led him to work as a senate aide in 1992 to Sen. Bob Kasten and as legislative director between 1995-97 for Sen. Sam Brownback, both ardent pro-lifers. He worked as a speechwriter for Jack Kemp during the 1996 campaign after spending a few years at the think-tank Kemp ran with Bill Bennett, Empower America.

Since being elected to the House in 1998, Ryan has developed a solid reputation with the grassroots as a pro-life, pro-marriage Catholic, and among tea party and fiscal conservatives he has attained hero status for his extraordinary grasp of economic and budgetary issues. At the age of 42, Congressman Ryan is now often referred to the “intellectual leader” of the Republican Party, a description repeated by Mitt Romney in announcing his VP choice.

Biden’s vulnerabilities as the choice for Catholic voters are neither more nor less than those of President Obama — Biden will have to continue to defend the expansion of the abortion mandate and the violation of religious liberty at the heart of the HHS mandate. Unless Biden repeats the mistake he made in 2008 on Meet the Press, it is unlikely he will draw any direct fire from the bishops.

While the choice of Ryan will please the Tea Party, fiscal conservatives, and social conservatives, it creates an opening for the Catholic supporters of Obama: Paul Ryan’s 2012 GOP budget has already been the subject of official criticism by some Catholic bishops for failing to meet certain “moral criteria” and cutting programs that, “serve poor and vulnerable people.” The media coverage failed to note that the four letters to Congress in April came from two bishops, Bishop Stephen E. Blaire of Stockton, CA, chairman of the Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development, and Bishop Richard E. Pates of Des Moines, IA, chairman of the Committee on International Justice and Peace, each speaking on behalf of the USCCB in their respective roles.

The first letter arrived on April 4 to the House Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies. On April 10, Ryan ably defended himself and his application of Catholic principles in an interview with David Brody.

“Those principles are very, very important,” Ryan said. “And the preferential option for the poor, which is one of the primary tenets of Catholic social teaching, means don’t keep people poor, don’t make people dependent on government so that they stay stuck at their station in life; help people get out of poverty, out into a life of independence.”

Ryan’s words were ignored amidst the subsequent denunciations of social justice Catholics, led by Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut who after underscoring her Italian, Catholic upbringing charged:

“The Ryan budget does not address debt nor fiscal responsibility. What it does is take care of the very wealthy at the risk of the middle class and people who are poor. That is contrary to Catholic teaching.”

In spite of the fact that DeLauro completely ignores the latitude allowed to prudential judgments based upon Catholic principles, her charge will be repeated ad nauseum against the Romney/Ryan ticket over the next 90 days.

DeLauro’s interview on April 17 was prompted by the arrival of three more letters to Congress from two Catholic bishops, once again accusing the Ryan budget of hurting the poor and failing the measure of Catholic social teaching.

Ryan knew he had more explaining to do, so on April 29 he sent a four-page letter to the president of the USCCB, Archbishop Dolan of New York, explaining how his budget was guided by the principles of Catholic social teaching. Ryan argued that as a Catholic he was justified in taking into account the bigger picture of the entire economic situation facing the nation. He argued there was a moral obligation “implicit” in Catholic social teaching to address “difficult basic problems before they explode into social crisis.”

The supportive letter of May 18 Ryan received in response from Archbishop Dolan was hardly noticed. But the major points made by Ryan in both his Brody interview and in his letter to the Archbishop were clearly acknowledged:

“The principles of Catholic social teaching contain truths that need to be applied,” wrote Archbishop Dolan, by the application of “prudential judgment.”

The level of opposition to the Ryan budget among the bishops is not unsubstantial.  At their June meeting in Baltimore, the bishops voted 171-26 approving a proposal brought by Bishop Stephen Blaire, chairman of the Bishops’ Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development, to begin drafting a message on the U.S. economy, entitled “Catholic Reflections on Work, Poverty and a Broken Economy.” This draft will be presented to the entire body of bishops at their November 2012 meeting after the election.

But the fact that this document is in the works, and that it was prompted specifically by the Ryan budget, is indicative of criticism that will undoubtedly be leveled at the GOP, its ticket, and Congressman Ryan himself: The charges of “cutting programs,” “hurting the poor,” and “destroying the safety net” will reinforce the stereotype of the GOP as uncaring, heartless, and the “party of the rich.” (Bishop Stephen Blaire, it should be noted, is the bishop of Stockton, CA, which just a month ago filed for bankruptcy protection.)

The bottom line is this: The Romney/Ryan campaign must acknowledge the Catholic concerns about the budget as a major obstacle to winning the election on November 7. It will make or break the GOP ticket’s appeal to Catholics in a state like Pennsylvania where I am presently putting together a Pennsylvania Catholics’ Network. Romney, Ryan, and their surrogates need to be proactive and explain, before the criticism reaches a fever pitch, how Ryan’s budget does, in fact, satisfy the “moral criteria” of Catholic social teaching.  The argument, I believe, can be made, but the campaign must have the will to make it.

 [Deal W. Hudson is president of the Pennsylvania Catholics’ Network and was chairman of Catholic Outreach at the RNC between 2000-2004 and is the author of Onward Christian Soldiers: the Growing Political Power of Catholics and Evangelicals in the United States (Simon & Schuster 2008). This article was reprinted with permission from Deal Hudson, and first appeared in The Daily Beast.]


  1. Jason Alan on August 13, 2012 at 8:53 am

    If it was up to me I wouldn’t let any religious people in office. I’d rather have logical, rational people in government.

    • quinersdiner on August 13, 2012 at 10:09 am

      Then you wouldn’t be able to vote for any liberal candidate. Haven’t met a logical, rational one in a long time. Thanks for writing. Come again.

    • J on August 13, 2012 at 11:59 am

      When I read this comment what I get out of it is, “If it was up to me, I’d insert flagrantly bigoted and arbitrary restrictions on who can run for office, thus eliminating all pretense of democracy. Also I assert that no one who is religious is logical or rational despite the fact that this is clearly a delusional and inflammatory statement.” That’s a lot of prejudice packed into two sentences.

      As for the article, I really have trouble taking the USCCB seriously on some issues. And the social justice crowd jettisons any moral authority they might claim when you look at the fruits of their labors. Massive numbers of people dependent on government handouts, unwilling to strive for anything better for themselves. We are admonished to take care of the poor, but St. Paul also said, “Let he who will not work, not eat.” Charity is not the enabling of slothfulness.

      • quinersdiner on August 13, 2012 at 12:04 pm

        Good, comprehensive response. I agree. Thanks!

      • Jason Alan on August 13, 2012 at 12:43 pm

        Exactly, J. I want to be king of the world and send all the religious people far far away in a spaceship and we’ll all live happily ever after. The end.

  2. juwannadoright on August 13, 2012 at 11:30 am

    This is an excellent and thoughtful article.

    We are promised “equal opportnity – not equal outcomes.” There will always be some who prosper more greatly than others – even on a level playing field. Do we have a responsibility as a society to those who aren’t even equipped to get in the game? Of course we do.

    But the present system encourages people to remain in their government funded slavery as though there were no XIII’th Amendment to the Constitution. And it is hard for me to understand how any person of conscience, whatever their party or religious affiliation, can justify what we have done to several generations of Americans who truly have no education, no skills and no hope for a better life.

    This is an issue which is hard to face because if we look at the facts we will see that we as voters have elected people who have created it. Paul Ryan’s budget and ideas will cause some immediate pain, but the ultimate goal is to remedy this truly American tragedy. Isn’t about time that someone had the guts to tell it like it is?

    I think that time is long overdue.

    • quinersdiner on August 13, 2012 at 11:37 am

      Couldn’t agree more. Thanks for writing.

  3. Karen Quiner on August 13, 2012 at 4:06 pm

    Thanks Jason. That is an intelligent and reasoned response we can all sink our teeth into.

  4. Joel Schmidt on August 13, 2012 at 10:51 pm

    Respectfully, the events presented here seem a bit muddled.

    1) Initial criticisms of Mr. Ryan’s 2012 budget proposal came in letter dated April 13, 2011 from Bp. Blaire and Bp. Howard Hubbard of Albany, who preceded Bp. Pates as Chairman of Committee on International Justice and Peace.

    2) In response to these concerns, Mr. Ryan sent a letter to Abp. Dolan on April 29, 2011.

    3) Abp. Dolan replied to Mr. Ryan in a letter dated May 18, 2011.

    4) Mr. Ryan’s interview with David Brody was on April 10, 2012.

    5) Ms. DeLauro’s interview with the Christian Post was on April 17, 2012.

    6) The bishops approved the drafting of “Reflections on Work, Poverty and a Broken Economy” at their meeting in Atlanta in June 2012.

    • quinersdiner on August 14, 2012 at 6:52 am

      Thanks for the clarifications.

      • Joel Schmidt on August 14, 2012 at 9:50 am

        My point in making the above clarifications is that Deal’s post is very sloppy with some of the facts and unfairly characterizes Bishop Pates. Indeed, in seven separate letters, our bishop has expressed concerns about the Obama administration’s budget proposal.

        • quinersdiner on August 14, 2012 at 9:57 am

          I appreciate the clarifications. Thanks for staying on top of this issue. I know that Bishop Pates has been outspoken in his criticism of the HHS Mandate. I heard him speak directly against the Mandate at the Mass for Life on January 23rd, the day Kathleen Sebelius announced its imposition.