Speaker Ryan, I am of the understanding that House chaplain, Father Patrick Conroy, S.J., recently resigned at your behest (before he rescinded his resignation following public outcry). You say you asked him to resign due to concerns about his pastoral care (which you mentioned at a closed-door meeting of House Republicans), while other members of the House and his Jesuit colleagues dispute that. Representative Bill Pascrell (D-NJ) cites “the whims of extremists in [your] caucus”, while Father James Martin, S.J. cites “no little anti-Catholicism” as the motive behind his firing. Father Martin clearly trusts his colleague’s word, who cites a rationale apparently given by your top aide Jonathan Burks: “maybe it’s time we had a chaplain who wasn’t a Catholic.”

That comment is incredibly revealing, Mr. Ryan, for you yourself were baptized and confirmed Catholic. You should not have an anti-Catholic bias. Yet you sponsored a landmark tax reform bill last year, and during debate, Conroy prayed that “there [would not be] winners and losers under new tax laws, but benefits balanced and shared by all Americans,” a prayer which Burks cited as a reason for Conroy’s firing. If you want a chaplain who will not pray such things, then indeed it is time to look for a chaplain who isn’t a Catholic. The Church’s teaching is quite clear that we must “seek...together the common good and well-being of all”, which is exactly what Father Conroy prayed for. What is the common good and well-being of all, other than benefits balanced and shared by all Americans? And is that not your job as a representative and as Speaker to ensure the common good of Americans?

Yet shortly after, as Father Conroy recalls, you told him that he “just got to stay out of politics” [sic]. Clearly, you were disturbed by this exhortation, or else you would feel no need to reprimand him for it. If your tax bill were fair, without winners or losers, you would welcome Father Conroy’s prayer as an affirmation, or else you would assume a simple misunderstanding on his part. In that case, you would have tried to explain things to him rather than dismissing his concerns.

As a matter of fact, your tax bill does create winners and losers, namely the rich and the poor respectively. It is true that (almost) any tax cut will disproportionately help the rich since they pay more in taxes, but yours is designed to benefit the rich even when you take that into account. According to the Tax Policy Center, 80% of the benefits will go to the top 1%: corporate taxes, “pass-through” taxes, the alternative minimum tax, the estate tax, and taxes on foreign earnings dividends--all of which are paid exclusively or primarily by the rich--are on the chopping block, whereas the bottom 80% of American families will actually experience a net tax increase by 2027 (due to the elimination of many deductions, among other factors).

You try to justify these future increases by saying they were required to make the bill less expensive so as to get it passed; the cuts were always meant to be extended. But the tax plan has to pay for itself somehow, and you yourself have expressed a desire to cut spending on “healthcare entitlements” and “welfare” as a means of balancing the budget.

First, Speaker Ryan, notice how you speak here. By using the word “entitlement,” you bring to mind the image of a spoiled Millennial acting like he or she is entitled to riches. But the sick, the poor, the disabled, and the elderly are not narcissists, nor are they lazy. The elderly even paid into the system that they hope to derive benefits from. And the poor do not just sit around mooching off of welfare.

The vast majority of the ones who can work do work because most of the time it does pay to work even with the “welfare system” in place. But they face barriers that you cannot imagine. Many have children that they either need to care for or pay someone else to care for. Many grew up too poor to even pay for college, trapping them in low-income jobs for the rest of their lives. And even for those who are going to college in search of better opportunities and an end to their poverty--the solution you favor--they cannot be full-time employees and full-time students at the same time. Work requirements on food stamps and cash assistance will leave them destitute, and cuts to the programs will leave everyone in poor shape.

You argue that this is not so, since “if you were raised poor, you’re just as likely to stay poor” today as you would have been 50 years ago (when the War on Poverty started). Politifact says that statement is True. However, that study was talking about comparative poverty, not real relative poverty (“poor” being defined as the bottom 20% of income). And while the Census Bureau’s data from 2016 does indicate that the percentage of people in poverty (i.e., with a low cash income) hasn’t changed much since the 1960s, the Supplemental Poverty Measure--which includes the value of non-cash government benefits--shows that the poverty rate has dropped by half since these benefits began.

I understand that this may be difficult for you to believe since you subscribe to the supply-side economic theory. According to this framework, if taxes are cut for the wealthy and for corporations, it will induce them to work harder since they will be able to keep more of the benefit, and they will re-invest the benefits they keep into the economy, which will create growth and help everyone in the long run. And we can only afford to cut taxes if we cut spending, since the Kansas experiment shows that tax cuts do not pay for themselves.

However--as shown above--this harms the poor, and there will not be benefits to the economy that “trickle down” to them enough to make up for the harm done. Actually, the reverse may well happen if the supply-side model is true. If the rich gain more than the poor do, and then they spend it (as the supply-side model predicts), there will be inflation in proportion to the total gain in income among the population. Since the rich are receiving a disproportionate share of those gains, their real spending power will increase even when taking into account that inflation, while the real wages of the poor will decrease due to inflation. If you want government dollars--either direct subsidies or tax cuts--to help the poor, they need to go to the poor without passing through the hands of the rich who will siphon much of it for themselves.

And yes, it is your responsibility to help the poor. As a conservative Catholic, you have stood with the Little Sisters of the Poor against the contraceptive mandate, because freedom of religion is not simply freedom of worship. It isn’t enough to be Catholic on Sunday; you need to be Catholic Monday through Saturday as well. That means obeying all the teachings of the Church, not just the ones that conform to your ideology; you cannot serve both God and a political party absolutely (see Matthew 6:24). And serving God means serving the poor. God desires mercy, not sacrifice. True worship is to work for justice and care for the poor and oppressed (see Isaiah 58:5-7). The Church has long advocated a preferential option for the poor; in the words of the U.S. bishops, “The obligation to provide justice for all means that the poor have the single most urgent economic claim on the conscience of the nation...The needs of the poor take priority over the desires of the rich.”

And yes, the nation does (in part) mean the government. The Second Vatican Council “asked individuals and governments to remember the saying of the Fathers: "Feed the people dying of hunger, because if you do not feed them you are killing them," and it urged them according to their ability to share and dispose of their goods to help others, above all by giving them aid which will enable them to help and develop themselves.” It’s true that the ideal is a hand up, not a handout (as you call it). Whenever possible we do need to help the poor find a long-term solution. But, as you yourself pointed out, social mobility is low in modern America. The American Dream is the exception, not the rule, even for those who work very hard.

Until we make the structural changes to society that will increase social mobility and decrease income inequality, we are obligated to support the basic needs of the poor so as to allow them to be full members of the human community. Recall also here the Parable of the Talents: much shall be required of him to whom much is given (see Luke 12:48). You may only have a few months left in office, but during those few months, you have the entire federal budget at your disposal, for you lead the majority party in the House. Your Lord expects you to invest that money in that which will benefit all of the American people. Instead of giving the rich yet more superfluous tax cuts, why don’t you give their riches to people in extreme poverty, who are actually entitled to them (in the words of the U.S. bishops)?

Remember that it was not an acceptable arrangement when Lazarus desired to eat the crumbs that fell from the rich man’s table (see Luke 16:19-31). When the rich man died, he paid the price for his neglect to help Lazarus directly, because he (along with his brothers) had Moses and the prophets to instruct him in right behavior. You have the Church; may you listen to Her. But if you are not convinced by the constant word of the Church, maybe you will be convinced by the word of Him who rose from the dead. Whatever you do for the least of Christ’s brothers and sisters, you do for Him (see Matthew 25:34-46). It is true that to Nancy Pelosi He would say, “I was a babe in my mother’s womb and you let her hire a doctor to kill me.”

But to you, He would have something to say too: “I was a Dreamer and you gave ICE the money they spent on deporting me. Yet when I was old and sick, you allocated no money for my Medicare or Social Security. I was a little child and you took away my mother’s childcare grant. I relied on food stamps to eat and you cut them. I was too poor for private healthcare and you took away my Medicaid. Now away with you; go off into punishment along with the rest of the goats.”

Christ continues to speak through His representatives on Earth, the priests--including Father Conroy. When you hear that voice and it causes a little prick, pay attention. That’s your conscience speaking. When it tells you to turn from a particular course of action, it is imperative that you repent, change your course, and make amends. God will eventually speak words of justice, yes, but before that day He wills to speak the words of mercy. No matter what you have done, reconciliation is always possible. Do not fear that it will exile you from your party; being a friend of God is far more important than being a friend of men (and you aren’t running for re-election anyway). You’ve already taken the first step by reinstating and meeting with Father Conroy; now don’t be afraid to approach his alter ego. The Lord understands that we’re human and always offers pardon. And, if you do His will from this point forward, He will count you among His sheep.