Pope Responds to Rush Limbaugh

Catholic in the Ozarks ^ | December 16, 2013

[NYer]

Pope Francis
presidencia.gov.ar

If Rush Limbaugh were to say this Monday that his accusation of Marxism in the papacy provoked a response from the pope himself, he would be 100% right.  Pope Francis responded to the following question in his latest interview with Andrea Tornielli (Vatican Insider)...

TORNIELLI: Some of the passages in the “Evangelii Gaudium” attracted the criticism of ultraconservatives in the USA. As a Pope, what does it feel like to be called a “Marxist”? 

POPE FRANCIS: “The Marxist ideology is wrong. But I have met many Marxists in my life who are good people, so I don’t feel offended.”

The term "ultraconservatives in the USA" is umbrella speak for Rush Limbaugh and those who followed his lead in the right-wing media.  If you would like to see Limbaugh's monologue that led to this little exchange between "golden EIB microphone" and the Chair of Peter, I have linked to a video here in a previous article.

In Limbaugh's own words: "this is just pure Marxism coming out of the mouth of the pope."  Pope Francis responds in his own words: "The Marxist ideology is wrong. But I have met many Marxists in my life who are good people, so I don’t feel offended." 

There is it folks.  Marxism is wrong.  Period.  Now we shouldn't be surprised about this should we?  The popes have been railing against Marxism for 120 years now.  Why should this one be any different.  The Holy Father goes on, so as to show a little charity toward Mr. Limbaugh and gang.  "I have met many Marxists in my life who are good people, so I don’t feel offended."  He is not offended by the accusation.  Why? Because he has met many good (well intentioned) people in his life who are Marxists, so he doesn't view this as an insult.

Now that's pretty gracious.  I wish I could say I felt the same way when people call me a Marxist (and they do).  I tend to get a little upset when they do this, because not only is it untrue (I'm not a Marxist), but as an American, the very accusation seems rather "un-American" to me -- an insult to my nationality.  The pope is not burdened with the same nationality complex as I, so he doesn't take it in an offensive way.  Of course you're probably wondering why anyone would call me a Marxist in the first place.  I suppose they call me a Marxist for the same reason Rush Limbaugh said "this is just pure Marxism coming out of the mouth of the pope." 

They lack imagination, and they are uneducated on this matter.

Yep, I said it.  I just called Rush Limbaugh unimaginative and uneducated -- on this issue.  Here is why I said it, and I pointed this out in my previous article.  I am a Distributist, and Distributism is an economic model that comes directly from papal teaching, stretching back 120 years to Pope Leo XIII papal encyclical Rerum Novarum.  Multiple encyclicals have been written on the topic since then, and each one carried far more weight than Pope Francis' recent apostolic exhortation Evangelii Gaudium.  So, you thought Pope Francis' words were politically charged? Wait till you read what previous popes have said, with more authority and weight of official Church teaching.  Here are just a few quotes...

"Hence by degrees it has come to pass that Working Men have been given over, isolated and defenseless, to the callousness of employers and the greed of unrestrained competition." -- Pope Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum, #3 

"On the one side there is the party which holds the power because it holds the wealth; which has in its grasp all labor and all trade; which manipulates for its own benefit and its own purposes all the sources of supply, and which is powerfully represented in the councils of the State itself. On the other side there is the needy and powerless multitude, sore and suffering, always ready for disturbance." -- Pope Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum, #47 

"Just as the unity of human society cannot be built upon “class” conflict, so the proper ordering of economic affairs cannot be left to the free play of rugged competition.  From this source, as from a polluted spring, have proceeded all the errors of the `individualistic’ school.  This school, forgetful or ignorant of the social and moral aspects of economic activities, regarded these as completely free and immune from any intervention by public authority, for they would have in the market place and in unregulated competition a principle of self-direction more suitable for guiding them than any created intellect which might intervene.  Free competition, however, though justified and quite useful within certain limits, cannot be an adequate controlling principle in economic affairs.  This has been abundantly proved by the consequences that have followed from the free rein given to these dangerous individualistic ideas." -- Pope Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno, #88 

"Such a society ["a society of free work, of enterprise and of participation"] is not directed against the market, but demands that the market be appropriately controlled by the forces of society and by the State, so as to guarantee that the basic needs of the whole of society are satisfied." -- Pope John Paul II, Centesimus Annus, #35 

"It is the task of the State to provide for the defense and preservation of common goods such as the natural and human environments, which cannot be safeguarded simply by market forces." -- Pope John Paul II, Centesimus Annus, #40 

"There is a risk that a radical capitalistic ideology could spread which refuses even to consider these problems, in the a priori belief that any attempt to solve them is doomed to failure, and which blindly entrusts their solution to the free development of market forces." -- Pope John Paul II, Centesimus Annus, #42 

"The Western countries… run the risk of seeing [the collapse of Communism] as a one-sided victory of their own economic system, and thereby failing to make necessary corrections in that system." -- Pope John Paul II, Centesimus Annus, #56 

"Business management cannot concern itself only with the interests of the proprietors, but must also assume responsibility for all the other stakeholders who contribute to the life of the business: the workers, the clients, the suppliers of various elements of production, the community of reference." -- Pope Benedict XVI, Caritas in Veritate #40 

"In the face of unrelenting growth of global interdependence, there is a strongly felt need, even in the midst of a global recession, for a reform of the United Nations Organization, and likewise of economic institutions and international finance, so that the concept of the family of nations can acquire real teeth. One also senses the urgent need to find innovative ways of implementing the principle of responsibility to protect and of giving poorer nations an effective voice in shared decision-making. This seems necessary in order to arrive at a political, juridical and economic order which can increase and give direction to international cooperation for the development of all peoples in solidarity. To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent need for a true world political authority." -- Pope Benedict XVI, Caritas in Veritate #67

When put into the context of previous papal teaching, (teaching that has far more weighty authority I might add, because these are papal encyclicals, not mere apostolic exhortations), it would seem that Pope Francis' remarks are quite mild in comparison.  This is papal teaching that goes back 120 years!  Are they all Marxists?  I suppose by Rush Limbaugh's criteria they might be.  In which case Catholic listeners of Rush might find themselves having to choose between the "doctor of democracy" and the Vicar of Christ.  Or maybe it's not that simple.  Maybe Rush is actually wrong about something, and if he is, well that just changes everything.

The truth is, Rush Limbaugh is not alone, and this article is not intended to pick on him exclusively.  There are many more conservative talk-radio show hosts out there, and a good number of them follow Rush's lead on stories.  This is added to a plethora of print media and Internet outlets that likewise share Limbaugh's opinion on a great many things.  Then of course there is the popular (and somewhat Leftist) mainstream news media. While these obviously don't agree with the "all-knowing, all-sensing, all-everything Maha Rushie," they do however share his view of Pope Francis as a liberal Marxist, but to them that's considered a positive thing.  I assert here that they are all wrong.  Why?  Because they are talking heads in the media who have never studied papal social teaching on economics before.  They've never bothered to research this, and what little investigation they might have done has been coloured by their own biases and limited world view.  So I'm going to simplify matters for all of them right now, and lay it out in plain and simple English for them to absorb.

The popes are not Marxists.  The popes are not socialists.  The popes are not fascists.  The popes are not Keynesians.  The popes are not Austrians.  The popes are not supply-siders.  The popes are not capitalists at all.  The popes are none of these things.  They have no economic model they follow.  Rather, they make the principles upon which economic models are built, and the only economic model built on papal teaching is distributism. 

In this loose sense we could say the popes are distributists, but we should keep in mind, the popes are not economic ideologues.  They leave such matters to those who can formulate such models.  Distributism comes from the popes.  The popes are not literally distributists.  Does that make sense?

Now the word distributism does not mean "re-distribution" as is the common misconception.  These are two completely different concepts.  Redistribution falls into the Keynesian model of economics, and is often a key component to other economic models as well, such as socialism and Marxism.  What we are talking about is taking money from one group of people and giving it to another.  While virtually all forms of government engage in this to some degree, that is not what is meant by "distributism."  Rather, what is meant by "distributism" is simply this.  The most just economic system is one in which productive property (small business, etc.) is the most widely distributed to the most people possible.  Distributism is about small family-run business.  In a distributist economy, small business is the boss.  It is the backbone of the economy. Distributists envision a world where the majority of commerce is exchanged through small business.  It's a world were nearly any man can "become his own boss."  Realising that some forms of business need to be much larger in order to function, Distributists call for the widespread creation of cooperative corporations, wherein the workers own a share (and a vote) in the management of a company.  This is the core of distributism, but it doesn't stop there.  There is much more in the way of trade guilds, licensing and small government based on subsidiarity.  Much of this will sound foreign to conservative talk-radio in America, and that's too bad, because there are a whole lot of "conservative" things to talk about here. 

I invite Rush and gang to do a little more homework.  Now that you've been graciously answered by the pope, Rush, you owe it to him to figure out what he's talking about.  I invite you to take a look at this Wikipedia article on distributism and then read a few articles on The Distributist Review.

[FourtySeven]

I think for the first time since encountering you on FR, I find myself in complete agreement with what you have said in a particular post. (This one). Haha

Not only that, but I think what you said here is a brilliantly simple way to encapsulate the truth of the matter in this topic of “Rush vs the Pope”.

[DeprogramLiberalism]

Thank you.

>Jesus said we would always have the poor with us<

This is the problem with all collectivist thought - they think they can create a utopia (heaven on earth) where everyone is prosperous and happy. Unfortunately, sin doesn’t allow for that. Sin always corrupts their utopian plans with unintended consequences, and things often end up worse than before they began. As I mentioned before, free market capitalism is the best system we have for creating prosperity and minimizing poverty. However, there will always be sinners making messes within that system.

>Marxism, I think, destroys the compassion we should have for the unfortunate by forced distributism. The Lord loves a “cheerful giver”.<

Yeah - hard to be a “cheerful giver” when Marxism takes everything you own.

All types of collectivism create an us-versus-them attitude, pitting the haves against the have-nots. Naturally this creates a double wall of bitterness. The have-nots demand to be taken care of and resent those they think owe them, and the haves feel unduly put upon. Not exactly a recipe for happy utopia.

[trisham]

Please keep me posted, friend.

[kildak]

“For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”

It’s a shame the Pope chose not to comment on this verse...

[Sloth]

It is impossible for Marxists to be good people. It’s like saying that rapists are still good people.

[editor-surveyor]

Of course it was NOT about ideology.

Christianity (i.e. the following of the Way of Yeshua) is in no way ideology. Francis was giving his interpretation of the will of Yeshua. He has no ideological platform.

You being less than educated, err on the meaning of Distributism.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Everyone needs to understand that what is "conservative" in America is not regarded as "conservative" elsewhere. By its nature conservatism is based on local beliefs and customs, and those vary from place to place. From a traditional, pre-modern European perspective capitalism itself is a radical, anti-family, modernizing thing, disrupting the ancient, organic hierarchies of society and replacing them with social mobility.

It is for this reason that Marxists consider capitalism the final stage before "socialism." Previous social systems had ancestral hierarchies in which people were largely frozen in whatever class they were born in (one could make the argument that the highly stratified medieval European society descended ultimately from the hindu caste system). Capitalism is regarded by Marxists as a positive good for having destroyed this and replacing it with an inorganic hierarchy based on ownership of productive property. All that remains now (according to them) is to supersede this final class division with a "classless society."

American conservatives should really study the conservatism of other cultures more than they do. They would learn, for one thing, why Fascism is considered "right wing" even though it was a totalitarian, collectivist, statist system. Despite all the claims that Fascism and Nazism were left wing, plenty of anti-Communists (including right wing Zionist 'Abba 'Achime'ir) considered totalitarian fascism as the ultimate antidote to totalitarian Communism. Some conservatives attribute the evils of Marxism to its "individualism" (patriotism and national identity are, after all, collective).

I myself of course consider G-d's Law as the ultimate antidote to all our problems. The Theocracy of Biblical Israel is not really fit in with any modern system. It was not the highly stratified society of medieval Europe, but neither was its ideology identical to that of eighteenth century American revolutionaries (there was certainly no "freedom of religion" as is so dear to American Protestants). It seems more capitalistic than traditional European chrstianity, but at the same time Divine Law commanded everyone to give to charity and there was a tithe for the poor taken up at certain times, as well as the right of the poor to glean in the fields and from the corners of vineyards. Maybe qualified poseqim should devote some time to studying these problems and coming up with practical solutions as to how to begin implementing a G-dly society even in these days before Mashiach.

I find myself between a rock and a hard place in this argument, as both free markets and the "organic" systems of European conservatives are flawed, as are all human systems. Capitalism indeed does create more wealth than any other system in history, but this voluminous wealth does not automatically make it into the hands of the needy who aren't able to work themselves. And as for distributism or social credit (its Protestant counterpart) carry the whiff of anti-Semitism as well as being a pull to the Left in the American context.

I do feel that some make an idol of capitalism just as they do of other economic systems. Some have an almost utopian concept of the free market. But that does not mean any alternative is better. There is simply no perfect system and never will be until HaShem is acknowledged as King over all the earth.

In the past I often thought that the insistence on correct economics was a mistake, since it prevented an alliance with other communities (the much vaunted "Blacks and Hispanics") who were economically liberal but socially conservative (after all, should sexual morality really be inextricably tied to a single economic system?). But I see now that these "socially conservative" communities aren't really socially conservative at all. Still, sexual morality is certainly more important and more central than economic speculation of any kind.

Just my thoughts.

[Zionist Conspirator]

I forgot to mention also that strain of American conservatism that is against "the rich" and sees them as "the real power behind Communism." This would include the John Birch Society and its orbit as well as some FReepers.

I have often pointed out that the JBS-right is in some sense a descendant of the old late nineteenth century Populist movement which was a sort of rural socialism whose beneficiaries were to be poor whites. This explains why some conservatives adore socialists like Huey P. Long and Father Coughlin while the Left ignores or demonizes them, in spite of their own leftist rhetoric. Many of these conservatives advocate the nationalization of the Fed or even the entire economic sector, and believe fiat currency printed by the government rather than by a central bank will solve all the problems in the world. Their rogues' gallery also is identical with that of the Populists: the old Federalist New England and New York families who were largely affiliated with the Republican party. There is also some interplay with the anti-capitalist and medievalist ideology of the Old South and of the Confederacy, whose apologists seem to have fewer objections to the "right kind" of socialists.

Many of the "old right" during the New Deal who opposed intervention in World War II were in fact old leftist radicals who simply maintained their original pacifist beliefs even when confronted with a war against "fascism." Kind of ironic, given how "palaeos" are always calling "neoconservatives" former leftists!

One of the JBS' heroes was Charles Lindbergh SR., a radical (and anti-Catholic) populist politician from Minnesota who was an early member of the left wing Minnesota Farmer-Labor Party. Needless to say, his son's struggle against "Jewish international bankers" is regarded as the continuation of his father's noble mission.

[Crolis]

Irishjuggler,

You make a very good point. While there are some people who take an ideology to criminal extremes (e.g. communists and Nazis), there are others who are well intentioned, even though they may be misguided.

I’m reminded of the book “The Rape of Nanking” which recorded that John Rabe, who was a German Nazi party member, lead a safety zone which saved numerous Chinese from Japanese aggression during WWII.

So I can’t disagree with the Pope’s statement that he has met many good Marxists. There can be genuinely good people are are caught up in a wrong ideology.

[editor-surveyor]

In addition, it could be pointed out that the framers of our country used the term ‘liberal’ in much the same sense that conservative is used today.

[Crolis]

In fact, the idea of distributism is better expressed in a country like the United States, where there is a very large middle class and generally smaller numbers of very rich and very poor.

The opposite is what you see in many Central and South American countries, where you have a small amount of very wealthy (e.g. Mexico) who control nearly all of the wealth and a huge number of poor or lower class people with hardly any middle class to speak of.

Unfortunately the trend is the USA to look more like Mexico if we keep going down Obama’s path. As our middle class shrinks due to globalization and the concentration of wealth it will inevitably look more like the Mexico’s of the world.

The Pope’s experience is probably informed by the crony capitalism found in many of the South American countries, where wealthy interests manipulate and screw over both the middle-class and the poor. Unfortunately, our politicians in the Democrat and GOPe parties seems to want to do the same thing to us.

[editor-surveyor]

>> “In fact, the idea of distributism is better expressed in a country like the United States, where there is a very large middle class and generally smaller numbers of very rich and very poor.” <<

.
Precisely.

Education is at a rock bottom low in this country.

[ek_hornbeck]

Distributism is not redistribution. Unfortunate name. It's really the opposite--it is based on the idea that the average guy should be his own boss, if possible, and that most of the economy should be dominated by small business. Control should be very local, not handed down from huge centralized government. Some of the ideas reflect what life was like in the US two hundred years ago. It's conservative in many ways. Homeschooling and lack of federal regulation are consistent with distributism. A lovely idea, though not one that will ever take place unless this country collapses altogether.

Chiang-Kai Chek was a distributist. His policies made it possible for Taiwanese farmers to become landowners rather than de facto serfs. You can't expect people to defend an ideology based on private property in the abstract when the reality consists of 99% of the population being non-property holders. Opposition to Communism and Socialism becomes a prerogative when you're defending your land and work.

[ek_hornbeck]

The opposite is what you see in many Central and South American countries, where you have a small amount of very wealthy (e.g. Mexico) who control nearly all of the wealth and a huge number of poor or lower class people with hardly any middle class to speak of.

This is why Communist ideology found little support in the US but found plenty of support among Third World peasants. In the US, most people are either property holders or have the realistic prospect of becoming property holders. Therefore, there's no sympathy for an ideology that promises to abolish private property.

In contrast, "private property" in Latin America means the wealth of a handful of families and their cronies. Why would a peasant fight and die to defend somebody else's land and wealth from usurping revolutionaries, especially when the revolutionary promises to give him a cut of the plunder?

Without an affluent middle class, not only do you not have "distributism," you don't have stable capitalism either, unless it's maintained by an autocratic police state.

[ek_hornbeck]

Unfortunately the trend is the USA to look more like Mexico if we keep going down Obama’s path. As our middle class shrinks due to globalization and the concentration of wealth it will inevitably look more like the Mexico’s of the world.

One of the many reasons that the United States is starting to resemble Mexico socio-economically is that both parties are hell-bent on importing most of Mexico into the US. What better way to erode the US Middle class and its political power by replacing them demographically with third world slum dwellers and illiterate dime-a-day unskilled grunt laborers?

[boatbums]

Well said and it is remarkable how few people “get it”. In order for a true “Utopia” to come about, the sin nature of man must be utterly eliminated. Until that happens, all attempts at creating it will be futile.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

What’s Wrong with Distributism

A most excellent article, which I have read and bookmarked - thanks for posting the link to it.

[Cyber Liberty]

"The Marxist ideology is wrong. But I have met many Marxists in my life who are good people, so I don’t feel offended."

He's from South America, so I'm sure he has also met a lot of Nazis who are good people.

[DeprogramLiberalism]

>Of course it was NOT about ideology.<

>You being less than educated, err on the meaning of Distributism.<

Economics isn’t about ideology?!? Give it up already. Attacking Rush is irrelevant. Now you are attacking me. Stick to the issues of the OP.

[editor-surveyor]

You’re the loose cannon on this thread, just look around.