That is the question raised by this blog post over at Commonweal. Here's the crux of the argument:
Similarly, while there may be a great deal of legitimate diversity of opinion concerning how best to promote the well being of the poorest, surely (on the magisterium’s view of its own authority) there is no legitimate diversity of opinion concerning the mandate to structure social policy toward that end. Thus, a Catholic politician who said that he was structuring social policy precisely because government has no obligation towards the poorest, could not be said to differ from the Church on a matter of mere prudential judgment.
There's plenty of room to argue the merits and effects of the plan, and a snide reference to the "debunked supply-side logic of self-funding tax cuts and the associated trickle-down prosperity" shows we are operating on a completely divergent set of economic assumptions here.
The more interesting claim is the assertion that the burden of proof falls on defenders of the plan to demonstrate that it is "consistent with the preferential option for the poor" or else:
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we should simply interpret the plan as intending to do what it does: improve the situation of the best off and then making up for that (and, in addition, reducing the debt over the long term) at the almost exclusive expense of some of the most vulnerable. And such an intent runs contrary to the principles of Catholic social teaching -- it does not reflect the prudential application of those principles.
I'm curious what my fellow Catholic members make of this latter claim. Is Mr. Peñalver correct about Catholic social teaching, and our disagreement with him (presuming you disagree) is purely on prudential economic grounds? Or is he mistaken about Catholic social teaching as well?