The Anchoress on Rep. Ryan and his Catholic critics

[Insert here all the necessary caveats about how there are, of course, plenty of reasonable and productive debates and discussions one could have about (i) the nature of the challenges facing our economy, broadly speaking; (ii) the extent to which Rep. Ryan's proposals respond well to those challenges; and (iii) what the Church's social teaching has to say about what counts as responding "well" to them.  That said . . .]

The Anchoress's reaction to the Colbert & Fr. Reese bit, and to the criticism from (some) Catholic liberals (see, e.g., the Georgetown faculty letter), is pretty much the same as my own.  There's an unattractive combination, in some of these reactions, of dismissiveness and smugness, but also anger, at the very idea that Rep. Ryan could be talking about his "savage" (etc., etc.) budget as reflecting an effort to work out, in contemporary conditions, the call and challenge of the Church's social teaching.  Sure, we all know (thanks to Rob Vischer and others!) that "subsidiarity" is about more than devolution and that -- in Russ Hittinger's words -- the point of "subsidiarity is a normative structure of plural social forms, not necessarily a trickling down of power or aid," but Rep. Ryan would hardly be the first lay person in public life to over-simplify a principle of Catholic social thought in a (good faith) effort to apply it.

Now, as the President likes to say, "let me be clear":  I am not endorsing all the details of the Ryan, or any other proposal.  (Simpson-Bowles looked good to me, I admit, but what do I know?) I do think, though, as I've said here at MOJ (too) often, that it's lame for politicians to lob charges of "savagery" while (unlawfully) sitting on their hands and doing nothing.  Rep. Ryan is inviting us to think about our pressing obligations in terms of ideas that he connects publicly (and plausibly) with the Church's social teaching.  This is, it seems to me, a good thing.

UPDATE:  Here is Ryan Anderson, discussing the same subject:

House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan (R–WI) is being criticized by the secular and religious left for comments he made about the role his Catholic faith played in crafting his budget. The most outrageous criticism is that it played any role at all.

The reactions to Ryan’s comments should call to mind three important things: (1) religious values should be welcomed in the public square, (2) not all religious values are based on divine revelation, and (3) translating moral principles into policy requires both prudence and technical expertise. . . .

. . .

Ryan’s proposed budget makes prudential and technical decisions when it comes to translating his moral principles into public policy. There are certainly other, perhaps even better, instantiations. But to characterize Ryan’s budget as a “punishing and heartless assault on Americans” and to claim that he “hates government” is to engage in some of the worst forms of demagoguery, and it is especially pernicious when religion is involved.

If theologians disagree with Ryan’s policies, they might hesitate before asserting that he rejects religious principle and instead seek to understand the prudential considerations that motivated his judgments. Much of the dispute lies not over how best to understand the principle of subsidiarity but on whether current federal entitlement spending is sustainable and whether the programs they fund are effective. It is disagreement about this issue that separates Ryan from his religious critics. . .

[Before you object in the comments, please re-read the first few sentences of this post, above.]