Posted on 11/27/2013 7:05:43 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Radio giant Rush Limbaugh is scorching the leader of the Roman Catholic Church for criticizing unfettered capitalism, saying, “This is just pure Marxism coming out of the mouth of the pope.”
“You know the pope, Pope Francis has issued an official papal proclamation, and it’s sad,” Limbaugh said on his national broadcast Wednesday. “It’s actually unbelievable. It’s sad because this pope makes it very clear he doesn’t know what he’s talking about when it comes to capitalism and socialism and so forth.”
“I’m not Catholic,” Limbaugh added, “but up until this I admired the man.”
In the 84-page document titled “Evangelii Gaudium,” which was released Tuesday, Pope Francis called upon politicians to provide “dignified work, education and health care” to all citizens.
“The commandment ‘Thou shalt not kill’ sets a clear limit in order to safeguard the value of human life,” wrote the pope. “Today we also have to say ‘thou shalt not’ to an economy of exclusion and inequality. Such an economy kills.”
Noting that he had visited the Vatican “numerous times,” Limbaugh observed wryly: “Believe me, it wouldn’t exist without tons of money. Somebody has either written this for [the pope] or gotten to him. This is pure Marxism.”
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Ideally, those who follow Christ are motivated primarily by neither fear nor greed, but by the Love of God, which in Latin is termed “caritas” and often translated into English as Charity—a concept related to but distinct from almsgiving, which in English may also be called charity, and, it seems, socialism.
I believe that there is a major confusion of theological terms going on here.
There is no such thing as pure Marxism. The “purism” canard is a just facile way for a Marxist to distance himself from unpleasant memories of the wretched authoritarianism associated with that label. To the extent Obama wields power by appealing to populist illusions of economic equality through governmental coercion, it is fair enough to call him a Marxist.
BTW, nice Alinskyism tactic there. Rush does entertain. Diminishing his beliefs as insincere or intellectually unsound simply because he earns money for being interesting is a causal fallacy of the first order. But many never catch it, so it is effective.
You see it might not include economist and I don’t agree totally with his analysis but since the results of economies have an impact on the human condition it is certainly a concern of Catholic teaching.
Sure. I understand that but he might focus more on places like North Korea and other places with less capitalistic economies. We have POOR people illegally entering this nation to get a piece of our more capitalist economy.
“Considering the Church was basically outlawed and driven underground for years in Mexico where do you get your information?”
Well if that were ever the case, it sure hasn’t been for the past half century. Actually, I had an uncle who was a missionary there for another church, and the Catholic priests stirred up the locals and tried to drive him out of each town along the way. BTW, how does one go about driving the largest Christian Religion in the world “underground.? I mean most of the church buildings in Mexico have been around since the Spaniards first showed up.
Completely subjugated? You have a strange definition of not-so-long-ago, The last explicitly pro-Catholic government was under Maximillian I from 1864-1867. From 1917 through the 30’s Mexico was ranked with the USSR and Republican Spain when it came to friendliness towards the Church—complete with firing squads for the priests.
“pure Marxism” and “Alinskism”. More ill defined bombastic insults. Call me ‘fascist’ too, why not!
Your radio heroes are entertainers, get used to it.
Laws are fetters. The obligation to respect the property rights of others, the obligation to keep one's contractual promises, these are fetters - restraints on one's freedom. They just happen to be restraints or fetters that we have found to be beneficial because they lead to a more productive and efficient economy. That's why we prize them. "Unfettered capitalism" is an oxymoron in that regard.
When the public wants to be robbed? Football IS a religion in Texas. ;) But maybe I should offer an alternative comparison, the huge mega-Baptist church complex in West Plano, or the one downtown Dallas.
I like that they’re entertainers. Is that supposed to bother me? It helps spread their message. You’d want them to be boring instead? LOL!
-— BTW, how does one go about driving the largest Christian Religion in the world “underground.? -—
You could ask my Polish relatives.
Does “More ill defined bombastic insults” qualify as an analytical response, or an “ill defined bombastic insult?” Curious minds want to know ... :)
Mathew 25:14-30
This parable shows that even Jesus has a positive view of capitalism.
The pope is wrong, period.
No, it sounds like he read the Pope’s latest writing and was commenting on it. It seems like you don’t have any reasonable response to his comments, if all you can come up with are piss poor ad hominems.
Only insults, like when somebody posts an article by Peggy Noonan or Pat Buchanan, only insults against these two, no discussion of the ideas they present. And then, there'll be all those insults directed at the posters who try to focus on the ideas presented, however minor.
It's entertaining, sure, to be called a liberal, Alinskite, anti-Catholic, who hasn't read what the Pope wrote (these psychics know everything about you, and they seem to be very concerned about you), but it all tells us more about the insulter than about the insulted. All in all, pathetic.
It comes as a shock to so many to discover that economic systems do not save and that adherence to one does not substitute for a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
Pursuit of wealth that results in the exploitation of another human being is a sin. Refusing to share (voluntarily) what you can (not claiming you must share all you have) to relieve the suffering of another is a sin. To rob the worker of his labor by refusing to pay its worth is a sin. To believe being poor means a person is not worthy of the basic needs of life is a sin.
To implement polices that cause people go into staggering debt in order to benefit the few is unjust. To implement policies that keep people bogged down in poverty is unjust. To implement policies that keep people from obtaining self sufficiency and economic security is a sin. To implement policies which create To implement policies which reward greed and manipulation and coveting is a sin.
To forget that there is supposed to be virtue and dignity in the work we do; that we are to be more than just part of a machine producing endless goods for endless consumption is to lose sight of what it means to be human.
Human beings when they try to solve these problems through government action have a very bad history. That is because although they may have the best of motives what they care about is advancing their version of utopia and honestly give little thought to the persons who they supposedly care so much about. That is how they can believe women’s rights can be best served by unfettered access to abortion. It is how they can believe access to health care can be best served by a mess like the ACA.
Christians are supposed to care first and foremost about the person. They are to see in the face of that person the truth of the Incarnation. That is what is to drive all our encounters with one another. That Christ became man and died for our sins. Our charity must arise out of love of Jesus. Either working alone or with one another. The State can never take the place of such care for on another.
“Apparently Rush’s opinion of Catholicism dovetails with Henry VIII’s as well.”
I wonder how you divine that, since Rush wasn’t talking about Catholicism, but one single Catholic. Are you a mind reader?
“For example, I disagree with the oil broker who buys oil when prices are low and then sells the oil back to consumers when prices are high.”
You disagree with market economics?
No, he is not a throwback to the Middle Ages. Not anymore than the English Parliament, or the Common law is. Of course, the Church is more medieval than modern, again, like the English monarchy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.