How the Catholic Church Got Roped into Liberalism

Rush Limbaugh.com ^ | March 16, 2012 | Rush Limbaugh

[Kaslin]

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: To the phones we go on Open Line Friday, starting in Santa Barbara, California. Hi Diane, you're up first. Hello.

CALLER: Hi, Rush! I was wondering if you noticed a pattern starting with Georgetown University, who's heavily funded by federal money, and how they abandon their principles? I noticed that the Law School Reproductive Health -- or Reproductive Justice -- was started like in '09. So it's just kind of crazy how just a lot of pressure to abandon their principles.

RUSH: You know, I was talking to somebody about this the other night, Diane. This is actually a very brilliant point that you've come up with. Somebody was asking me, "What are they mad at you for? You're not the one denying them contraceptives. Georgetown is." Except, Diane, you should know that we looked into this. Georgetown University does provide contraception when it is prescribed for medical conditions that have nothing to do with birth control. Contraceptives sometimes have other medicinal benefits, and Georgetown will allow the coverage for the prescription of contraception in those circumstances but not to be used for birth control. So I'm not the one denying anybody birth control and Georgetown is.

But that's why these activists enroll there. One of the questions that came up was, "Well, why would you enroll? If you're a big birth control activist, and if for some reason you think that your country is denying you all the birth control that you want, why would you enroll at a place that doesn't offer it?" Well, duh. If you're an activist, by definition, you are enrolling to stir it up there. You are enrolling to tear down the moral and conscience policies of that institution. That's the express purpose. The Catholic Church is under siege. The Catholic Church is under attack. It's a huge target. And the Catholic Church finally knows it.

The Catholic Church is finally standing up defense some of this stuff. Diane, you should know -- and the rest of you, too -- that I learned a lot during this whole fiasco. One of the things that I learned was the reason the Catholic Church (all the way back to the days of FDR) got roped into the liberal socialist agenda is that they became convinced that welfare was charity, and churches are big on charity. And they thought that it would sound good for them to support massive government wealth-transfer programs, welfare programs, under the guise that it was charity. So the Catholic Church and its hierarchy in this country slowly but surely migrated to socialism, in terms of its political preferences.

Now, not so much the way it dealt with its flock, but outwardly -- with its political associations and attachments (i.e. people that they voted for, supported) -- under the notion that liberalism is charity, under the notion that welfare is charity. Well, it isn't. Welfare is the willful absconding of money owned by others and giving it to other people for your benefit, not theirs. Liberals give money to people wanting a payback. The payback is the vote. Liberals are not giving people money to increase their lifestyles or improve their lifestyles. It doesn't happen, does it? The poor are still poor. The homeless are still homeless. Despite all these great liberal programs, the numbers, the percentages never change.

Liberalism doesn't solve problems. It doesn't fix anything. It just exacerbates them. So it isn't charity. Real charity is targeted to people in genuine need who cannot help themselves. The purpose of welfare is not to help people who can't help themselves. If I may be blunt, the purpose of welfare is to create as many people as possible who refuse to help themselves because they don't have to anymore. They've got welfare plans. Welfare is robbing Peter to buy Paul's vote. It's insidious. It destroys people's humanity and their dignity. It takes away their ambition, their desires and gives them a life of squalor, under the guise of big-heartedness and charity and so forth.

And what it comes down to, Diane, is the left -- the Democrat Party, however you want to describe them -- never want to be judged on the results of their so-called good works. They want credit for their good intentions. (sobbing) "Well, we want to end homelessness and we want to end poverty, and that makes us good people." They never do end homelessness. They never do end poverty. You're never supposed to point that out. You're just supposed to talk about how big their hearts are. But the Catholic Church got roped into this whole notion that all of that is "charity," so they became big supporters of it. This is now causing some lights to go on at the upper levels of the Church and they're starting to see things the way you do, Diane.

END TRANSCRIPT

[fishtank]

I hate to say this, but Rush doesn’t even really know what liberalism is.

I wrote my tagline after years of listening to Rush give the wrong definition of what the word “liberalism” really means.

[JustSayNoToNannies]

The bishops forgot about the Catholic principle of subsidiarity - government shouldn't do what private citizens and organizations can do.

[Albion Wilde]

When government confiscates “tithes” and redistributes them according to their political agenda, it’s of no use to God, Who only recognizes a true sacrificial gift from the heart of an individual who isn’t being forced to give. He is interested in the inner growth of the spirit, not an outward display to impress others.

[AmericaUnite]

Bump

[AmericaUnite]

I keep praying, “Have Mercy on us and on the whole world, Jesus, I Trust in You”

[AmericaUnite]

I keep praying, “Have Mercy on us and on the whole world, Jesus, I Trust in You”

[kearnyirish2]

Rush’s rant lacked a basic understanding of what had happened in Europe before FDR, where the Church was widely viewed as being part of the ruling class in some countries. The downtrodden often associated the Church with their oppression & miserable lot in life, leading to the execution of over 7,000 priests (and over 100 nuns) in Spain during their civil war.

Rush oversimplified it.

[Gumdrop]

Historically when the Catholic immigrants came to North America (late 19th century), an elite gorup of Republicans from Boston and NYC railed against the incoming poor irish among them and put put out signs, “No Irish need apply”. Then they coined election slogans like “Rum, Romanism and Rebellion”.

That forced the Catholic voters into the Democrat Party. And since the majority of priests were of Irish origin as well as policemen and firemen, they became the leaders of the American RC church.

My own great-grandparents were all Democrats. One of my ggrandfathers owned a bank and he was a county leader in the Democratic party in MN. He was a very well-known man and highly esteemed by the local people. By 1896, however, he was quoted in the local newspaper as being against the policies of Wm Jenings Bryon and my ggrandfather opined that he had observed the hard work of people who had entrusted their meagre savings into his bank for safe keeping, and he (my ggf) was not about to vote for any policy that would cause excessive inflation and render the value of these people’s saving as nothing. So, without saying who he was going to vote for, I believe he voted for Wm McKinley for President. In 1942, his son, my grandfather, on his deathbed told my Mother, that “Thank heavens, I never voted for FDR.” So some catholic in the USA were already moving over to the GOP early on, yet others have persisted in clinging (what a word - and it better used to described Catholic Democrats) to the party of FDR and JFK.

Fast Forward to FDR, and Rush is correct. The bishops were easily gulled into believeing that social programs through the government were much like approving of charity. It was a BIG mistake. They should have remembered the parable that Jesus told about the old, poor widow who put her last coin into the church collection, God looked upon her donation as the largest one of all, since she gave from her need (her heart), and not from her excess.

Socialism, in my opinion is a sin against the Holy Spirit. It masquerades as charity when it is really designed to steal from individuals, making it more difficult to donate freely from the heart. It also hardens the hearts of the people against donations since they see the transfer of their wealth to persons who did not earn it, without any sense of appreciation from the recipients, and rather a sense of entitlement.

Charity is thereby destroyed in the hearts of both the donor and the recipient. Since the gospel says that Charity is the first among the Theological virtues, this is a grievous sin agaissnt the Holy Spirit IMHO.

[Cicero]

Excellent. You just saved me from having to say that!

I would add that all the Mainline Protestant churches made the same false decision toward the end of the nineteenth century. The American novelist Winston Churchill wrote a fascinating book about it, whose title currently slips my mind. It’s about a pastor who concludes that it would easier, and less shameful, for the government to support the poor, so he wouldn’t have to keep begging money from his rich parishioners, and make the poor suffer from their condescending help.

It goes back a pretty long way, and has been gathering momentum ever since, especially under FDR and LBJ.

[Cicero]

Ah, my set of Churchill’s novels is in Maine. But I just found the title of that novel—”The Inside of the Cup.”

[Fitzy_888]

In a medium/large city near me in New York the city school board is paying the Catholic Church or technically it’s “Catholic Charities” to provide social workers in the public schools. Catholic Charities in turn takes 47% of the grant money as overhead and essentially provides no overhead function other than cutting a pay check. It’s quite a racket. Catholic Charities hires young social workers, or recent grads, who do have credentials, they are paid peanuts and are totally unaware of the graft by Catholic Charities. The social workers are made to think they are pursuing a noble effort. It‘s important to note, the city school board is aware of the graft going on, but it suits their motives quite well. The Catholic Church is in the business of running elementary schools and the city school board has effectively bought off their chief, would be, critic. And, if this is all exposed it ultimately discredit the Catholic Church and not the poor souls on the city school board that were duped. You see, the city school board wins either way, better honey than vinegar -but either will do.

In the inner cities, the Catholic Church is now more and more just another non-profit feeding off government grant money. I have no doubt this scam is going on all over.

[Albion Wilde]

I think your post gives a much fuller picture of why the early Irish immigrants were shunted into the Democrat fold. The Scorcese movie “Gangs of New York” , set in the 1865 or so time frame, illustrates the conflicts between incoming Irish refugees from the potato famine and the resentful English-descended gangs of “Nativists.”

[NYer]

Catholic Ping
Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list

[ex-snook]

Nah Rush this is why people voted for FDR. The Democrats planned to do something for their hunger now. The Republicans wanted the market long run to solve their problem. Charity, welfare, liberalism, socialism, capitalism, all academic to those wanting paycheck work from somebody to support their family.

[hinckley buzzard]

One inconvenient truth is that the church is relatively unconcerned with worldly freedoms for the individual. There is little precedent, for example, of the RCC supporting true democratic movements abroad, as opposed to supporting collectivist "social justice" movements. This is not an oversight or a simple error on their part.

The kind of individualism inspired by Christ's message of the sacred worth of every person, has little significance for the magisterium. Not that they are against people having freedoms and self governance, they just aren't impressed that for the salvation of the soul it is all that big a deal.

Maybe they are right--I'm no theologian and IDK. but it only illustrates that the RCC should not be expected to be a vigorous advocate against big government, except when their "matters of conscience" are threatened.

[Kenny Bunk]

No scholar, our Rushbo.

The Catholic Church's "Liberalism" began mid-19th century with the beginnings of "Christian Socialism," as an antidote to atheistic Marxism and Communism.

Christian Socialism is an international political movement that was immensely strong well into the 80s and is the parent of the EU, particularly in France, Belgium, Germany, and Italy. Politicians who ran these countries could be Christian Socialists first, and patriots second.

Many Catholic "liberal" intellectuals, began with their studies of Pius IX, whose inspiration was a church-centered socialism, inspired in turn by the early church which attempted to provide parish-based, cradle-to-the-grave care for Christians, funded by the wealthier members of the Church.

Many graduates of Catholic Colleges in the US with whom I have studied, were IMNSVHO, overly enthusiastic about Christian Socialism and the rousing encyclicals of Pius IX. It could be because their particular ancestors may not have lived in countries where the Pope, Bishop princes, and cardinal dukes maintained very harsh and repressive rule, complete with papal prisons, frequent death penalties, and a rigid caste system.

Since this is St. Patrick's Day, I'll be the first to give the Irish much credit for keeping their brand of the Catholic faith in the face of the murderous Puritan Cromwell and the later Anglican oppression ... but it's small wonder they tend to always see the Popes through green-tinted glasses. (Especially ironic, since it was the Pope that gave the English permission to take over Ireland in the first place!)

[ELS]

Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII on Socialism 28 Dec 1878

From the first paragraph:

But the evils which We then deplored have so rapidly increased that We are again compelled to address you, ... We speak of that sect of men who, under various and almost barbarous names, are called socialists, communists, or nihilists, and who, spread over all the world, and bound together by the closest ties in a wicked confederacy, ... strive to bring to a head what they have long been planning - the overthrow of all civil society whatsoever.

From Paragraph #9:

But Catholic wisdom, sustained by the precepts of natural and divine law, provides with especial care for public and private tranquility in its doctrines and teachings regarding the duty of government and the distribution of the goods which are necessary for life and use. For, while the socialists would destroy the "right" of property, alleging it to be a human invention altogether opposed to the inborn equality of man, and, claiming a community of goods, argue that poverty should not be peaceably endured, and that the property and privileges of the rich may be rightly invaded, the Church, with much greater wisdom and good sense, recognizes the inequality among men, who are born with different powers of body and mind, inequality in actual possession, also, and holds that the right of property and of ownership, which springs from nature itself, must not be touched and stands inviolate. For she knows that stealing and robbery were forbidden in so special a manner by God, the Author and Defender of right, that He would not allow man even to desire what belonged to another, and that thieves and despoilers, no less than adulterers and idolaters, are shut out from the Kingdom of Heaven.

There is more, but I think you can get the main idea that the Catholic Church does not approve of socialism.

Some other encyclicals that mention socialism:
Encyclical of Pope Pius XI on Reconstruction of the Social Order 15 May 1931
Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII on Capital and Labor 15 May 1891

[rbmillerjr]

This Rushbo take is fair at best. Here is a much better analysis.

American Catholicism’s Pact With the Devil

http://ricochet.com/main-feed/American-Catholicism-s-Pact-With-the-Devil

[Kenny Bunk]

t....he Catholic Church does not approve of socialism.

Thanks, ELS!

Now if only you had been around to explain that to Dorothy Day. But then again, it may not be too late to explain it to others.