Morality and economics, Pope Francis, and Rush Limbaugh

Renew America ^ | November 30, 2013 | Matt C. Abbott

[ConradofMontferrat]

What slavish automatons they are...

Not nearly as bad as the mind dead minions who grovel in the street chanting: "HOPE, CHANGE, HOPE, CHANGE, OBAMA, OBAMA....."

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Part IV. Of the Kingdom of Darkness
Chap. xlvii. Of the Benefit that proceedeth from such Darkness

[21] ...For from the time that the Bishop of Rome had gotten to be acknowledged for bishop universal, by pretence of succsession to St. Peter, their whole hierarchy (or kingdom of darkness) may be compared not unfitly to the kingdom of fairies (that is, to the old wives' fables in England, concerning ghosts and spirits and the feats they play in the night). And if a man consider the original of this ecclesiastical dominion, he will easily perceive that the Papacy is no other than the ghost of the deceased Roman empire sitting crowned upon the grave thereof. For so did the Papacy start out of the ruins of that heathen power.

[22] The language also which they use (both in the churches and in theirpublic acts) being Latin, which is not commonly used by any nationnow in the world, what is it but the ghost of the old Roman language?

[23] The fairies, in what nation soever they converse, have but one universal king, which some poets of ours call King Oberon; but the Scripture calls Beelzebub, prince of demons. The ecclesiastics likewise, in whose dominions soever they be found, acknowledge but one universal king, the Pope.

Part III. Of a Christian Commonwealth.
Chap. xxxviii. Of Eternal Life, Hell, Salvation, and Redemption.

[12] And first, for the tormentors, we have their nature and properties exactly and properly delivered by the names of the Enemy (or Satan), the Accuser (or Diabolus), the Destroyer (or Abaddon). Which significant names (Satan, Devil, Abaddon) set not forth to us any individual person, as proper names do, but only an office or quality, and are therefore appellatives, which ought not to have been left untranslated (as they are in the Latin and modern Bibles), because thereby they seem to be the proper names of demons, and men are the more easily seduced to believe the doctrine of devils, which at that time was the religion of the Gentiles, and contrary to that of Moses, and of Christ.

[13] And because by the Enemy, the Accuser, and Destroyer, is meant the enemy of them that shall be in the kingdom of God, therefore if the kingdom of God after the resurrection be upon the earth (as in the former Chapter I have shewn by Scripture it seems to be), the Enemy and his kingdom must be on earth also. For so also was it in the time before the Jews had deposed God. For God's kingdom was in Palestine, and the nations round about were the kingdoms of the Enemy; and consequently, by Satan is meant any earthly enemy of the Church.

Part IV. Of the Kingdom of Darkness
Chap. xlvii. Of the Benefit that proceedeth from such Darkness

Besides these sovereign powers, divine and human, of which I have hitherto discoursed, there is mention in Scripture of another power, namely, that of "the rulers of the darkness of this world," [Ephesians, 6. 12] "the kingdom of Satan," [Matthew, 12. 26] and "the principality of Beelzebub over demons," [Ibid., 9. 34] that is to say, over phantasms that appear in the air: for which cause Satan is also called "the prince of the power of the air";[Ephesians, 2. 2] and, because he ruleth in the darkness of this world, "the prince of this world":[John, 16. 11] and in consequence hereunto, they who are under his dominion, in opposition to the faithful, who are the "children of the light," are called the "children of darkness." For seeing Beelzebub is prince of phantasms, inhabitants of his dominion of air and darkness, the children of darkness, and these demons, phantasms, or spirits of illusion, signify allegorically the same thing. This considered, the kingdom of darkness, as it is set forth in these and other places of the Scripture, is nothing else but a confederacy of deceivers that, to obtain dominion over men in this present world, endeavour, by dark and erroneous doctrines, to extinguish in them the light, both of nature and of the gospel; and so to disprepare them for the kingdom of God to come.

Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan: with selected variants from the Latin edition of 1668. Ed. Edwin Curley. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1994.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Part IV. Of the Kingdom of Darkness
Chap. xlvii. Of the Benefit that proceedeth from such Darkness

When the fairies are displeased with anybody, they are said to send their elves to pinch them. The ecclesiastics, when they are displeased with any civil state, make also their elves, that is, superstitious, enchanted subjects, to pinch their princes, by preaching sedition; or one prince, enchanted with promises, to pinch another.

Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan: with selected variants from the Latin edition of 1668. Ed. Edwin Curley. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1994.

[fatima]

Nice to see you Clemenza:)I don’t like what the Pope said in certain translations.I have decided not to explain this Pope.I can say Foff to so called media personalities who do.Then they back track-well I didn’t read everything.Well it might have been mistranslated.Well did it boast your ratings and did you make more money honey.Yea-sure.Ride that train.

[Nifster]

this particular pope being the good jesuit he is, spouts communist doctrine and then turns around and says oh no that’s not what I meant…. and his defenders scurry to make it so

[Nifster]

I never ceased to be amazed at how words with commonly understood definitions manage to get twisted to someone’s view point.

this jesuit made very clear his dislike of market systems and his desire for government to intervene

[Nifster]

then maybe ‘your’ pope ought to do the same

[verga]

Increasingly, I think Rush simply reads nothing but secondary sources - the opinions of others - or perhaps just the headlines or maybe the lead paragraph from any article, report or document and never really sits down and analyzes it before he opens his mouth. And once his mouth is open, I’m not sure even he is always sure what will come out.

thee have been a number of occasions that I have heard him quote almost verbatim from this site. I have heard him repeat what a poster here has said on at least 5 occasions. He will quote the response and then expound on it.

[fatima]

As what Nifster?

[Redmen4ever]

I agree that the Pope condemns consumerism. But he also condemns capitalism. Check out paragraph 54.

The Pope has made his choice. The poor, he makes clear, are morally superior. He chooses to associate with them and condemn those who attain a degree of wealth, as how could anyone justify having any wealth when there are starving people in the world?

As for me, I have made by choice. I will follow Jesus.

Here is what Jesus said regarding the moral superiority of the poor. After saying it is harder for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven than for a camel to pass through an eye of a needle, his disciples said, who then can be saved. They said this because the Jews of that time generally thought wealth was a sign of the elect. Jesus did not respond, you Jews have it wrong. It’s not the rich who are going to heaven, it is the poor. No, he responded, by man this is impossible; but, by God, it is possible.

[verga]

What a c completely unchristian thing to say and dead wrong at the same time.

[Nifster]

“Rush and Sarah should mind their own business when it comes to our Pope.”

your words… so maybe the pope ought not be talking about politics or what governments ought to do….perhaps the pope should focus on the log in the roman eye

[fatima]

So you wish the Pope to talk about the Pope.:)I don’t understand.

[verga]

The last Crusade was against the Orthodox Church...

The first was against the Muzzies, your point being?

Was that a Christian thing to do?

I guess we both find revisionist history entertaining. Thank you for sharing your version of it.

[saradippity]

FYI,Rush's comments took up over seven pages after I approximated and subtracted how much space was taken up by the pictures. Father Trigiliio's comment took up about 3 and one third pages at most.

To put it another way Rush's comments used about 200 lines whereas Fr. Trigilio used only 90 or so to say what he had to say.

I hope that Rush thinks things out more thoughtfully in the future,I think he and his opinions have created more problems than solutions,often he has relegated very good thinkers and men and women of integrity to the "fringe group" as he salivated over one of his favorites candidates.

Thanks for a good article NY'er!!!!

[Redmen4ever]

No, not Jewish mammonism. More like Jewish Calvinism.

“To the Calvinists, material success and wealth was a sign that you were one of the Elect, and thus were favored by God.”

http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v18n3/berlet_calvinism.html

Max Weber, in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, contrasted the sanctification of work, saving, investment, management of enterprises, and so forth, provided by Protestants, to the Catholic Ethic of ecstatic poverty.

Weber may have over-simplified. Within the Catholic tradition, we might identify three perspectives on wealth: (1) Thomas Aquinas, who justified private property based on scarcity; (2) Augustine, who was suspicious of wealth (perhaps because he wrote during a time of corruption and decline), and (3) Francis of Assisi who embraced ecstatic poverty.

My reading of the document issued by Pope Francis is not that he sees himself as one of several valid perspectives on wealth within the Catholic tradition. The thing reads like a screed. It is polemical, unforgiving and relentless. It is completely imbalanced (finding fault only with the free-market, as though government is without fault). It is full of factual errors. It should be embarrassing, and I notice that many learned Catholics are attempting to explain it away.

[Redmen4ever]

If your point is to criticize Rush, your point is valid. He (Rush) should have been more politick. But, if your point is to exonerate the Pope, no, the excesses of Rush do not excuse an error by the Pope. Right now, many conservative Catholics are grappling with this document. I think the only proper response to this document is to pray for the unity of the faithful.

[steelhead_trout]

Matthew 21:12 (KJV)
“And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves.” So, Pope Francis is in good company.