Posted on 11/30/2013 3:59:08 PM PST by NYer
Pope Francis recently issued the apostolic exhortation "The Joy of the Gospel." Click here to read it.
Conservative radio personality Rush Limbaugh isn't pleased with the document, calling it "pure Marxism coming out of the mouth of the pope." (Source)
I sought comment on the matter from Father John Trigilio Jr., Ph.D., Th.D., president of the Confraternity of Catholic Clergy. Below is Father's analysis (slightly edited).
I often listen to Rush Limbaugh and find him to be an intelligent man and an erudite conservative journalist. He uses common sense and logic to expose the fallacious arguments of liberal progressives. Unfortunately, he himself has fallen into a trap by which he erroneously extrapolates a false premise from the recent papal document from Pope Francis.
Evangelii Gaudium (The Joy of the Gospel) is an apostolic exhortation issued on November 24, 2013. While not an ex cathedra infallible document, it nevertheless contains ordinary papal magisterial teaching that demands submission of mind and will by faithful Catholics.
Rush is uncharacteristically inaccurate in his quotations. Pope Francis did not criticize unfettered capitalism; he used the phrase unfettered consumerism. The late and great Father Richard John Neuhaus defined consumerism as:
Capitalism is an economic and political ideology, whereas consumerism is a personal and individual ideology. The former is focused on a free market; the latter is obsessed with the acquisition of goods in and of themselves. Blessed John Paul II made the distinction that communism and consumerism are far extremes, and both threaten human freedom. One denies the right to access of necessary goods; the other deifies materialism and promotes avarice, greed and envy. A free market system, on the other hand, treats human beings equally, not giving undo advantage to card-carrying members of the Communist Party while penalizing those who express some political dissent.
What Pope Francis, Pope Benedict, Pope John Paul, Pope Leo and others have consistently been saying and teaching, however, is that the individual person is a moral agent. He must answer to God for what he did or did not do to help his neighbor in need. The Gospel of Matthew ends by separating the sheep from goats based on what each individual did or did not do to feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, shelter the homeless, care for the sick, and so on. It is not a judgment of government policies or agencies; it is a personal judgment on each one of us.
That said, besides personal acts of Christian charity, it is logical and reasonable, prudent and necessary to pool resources and, even for the state, to help in cases where the most needy and most urgent cases are helped. Yet no pope ever promoted, nor called for, a welfare state that perpetually cares for the poor. The ultimate goal is to enable the poor to rise above poverty and reach a level of dignity commensurate with their human dignity.
Access to necessary goods is a natural right. That does not mean, however, that the natural moral law requires the poor to become enslaved to the state by permanently keeping them dependent. Rush calls Pope Francis a Socialist at best and a Communist at worst. Does this sound like a commie comment?
Contrary to what many modern public school textbooks currently tell our children, capitalism was actually created during the high Middle Ages and, as Michael Novak wrote in 2003, Catholicism is what created it. While feudalism sustained Christendom from the fall of the Roman Empire (476 A.D.) through the so-called Dark Ages, during the 12th to 14th centuries, the middle class arose thanks to capitalism, which eventually replaced feudalism. Medieval guilds and religious orders, such as the Cistercians, became contemporary entrepreneurs of their time.
Thomas Woods' How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization has an entire chapter titled "The Church and Economics" in which he, too, proposes that money was not an artificial product of government (crown or parliament), but a result of a voluntary process between merchants. Barter became more and more impractical when dealing with perishable items and dealing with transporting goods over long distances. Religious orders like the Cistercians devised accounting systems by which goods could be bought and sold between fellow monks, and this was duplicated by lay merchants who participated in the process.
While the secular states were governed by aristocracies and monarchies, and while the Church herself is hierarchical, it is still Catholic doctrine that all men and women are created in the image of God and by baptism are considered children of God. That spiritual equality was translated into an economic equality, which transcended the political. The emerging middle class came from the peasant class. They did so because their faith taught them they were equal in the eyes of God and therefore had equal opportunities to improve their material situation. Those who could not – the destitute poor, the lame, widowed and orphaned – relied on the Christian charity of the nobility and the emerging middle class.
It was the Church who literally created the colleges and universities, hospitals and orphanages, and who ran the poor houses and soup kitchens. The secular state (government) did not create these institutions; religious orders and dioceses did. Christian charity motivated those who had more to help those who had less.
When you read Evangelii Gaudium in its entirety, it continues the papal magisterium found in Rerum Novarum, Quadragesimo Anno, Mater et Magistra, Gaudium et Spes, Centesimus Annus, and, of course, the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
The very reason a nation has banking and finance laws is that human beings are not perfect. Original sin affects everyone, and some people, be they CEOs, CFOs, bankers or brokers, sometimes make bad choices that produce bad effects that cause great harm to many innocent people. I know of no conservative or liberal, Republican, Democrat, or Libertarian who would advocate the repeal of laws barring insider trading.
We need laws to maintain some parameters on banks and stock brokers to protect people from abuse and exploitation. Republicans and Democrats dispute the length, breadth and depth of such legal regulations, but even a free market has some borders that cannot be ignored. Limited government is still very different from no government. Some, even if minimal, legislation is needed since not everyone acts prudently or fairly or for pristine motives.
That said, it was totally unfair and inaccurate of Rush to attack Pope Francis for addressing a letter as head of the Roman Catholic Church to his more than one billion members. The pontiff was merely reiterating consistent Church teaching that supports a free market, but also reminds the moral obligation to act responsibly, honestly and prudently. No one can command generosity but it is something which should be encouraged and promoted. Welfare dependency helps neither the individual nor the nation. Some welfare is necessary for those who cannot be helped by private or non-profit charitable organizations. However, the goal is always to help move those into economic independence and become self-sufficient.
Laborem Exercens teaches us the sanctity of human work. The Catechism tells us that the Catholic Church always believes justice and solidarity are essential and necessary to human freedom. Justice is distributive, commutative and social. Unfettered consumerism is not synonymous with capitalism. A free market system respects human freedom and autonomy. Consumerism is an abuse and an extreme. Communism wrongly treated human labor as a means of production for the state. Consumerism wrongly treats the product of human labor and of the free market as the final source of happiness and fulfillment.
Material things, while helpful, do not produce enduring and true happiness. They make life easier, more comfortable and more convenient. Technology helps cure sickness and disease and helps makes life less a burden. All Pope Francis is warning is that the possession and acquisition of goods is not salvific, nor does it bring lasting joy. Pleasure is temporary, whereas joy can be eternal.
The pontiff is not forcing any nation or government to abandon capitalism; he's not advocating socialism let alone communism. He is, however, reminding Catholics all over the globe that we must buy and sell prudently while using our consciences. In that light, I see no reason for Rush to take offense or issue with Pope Francis.
I highly urge Rush to read Father Robert Sirico's Defending the Free Market and John Horvat's Return to Order. Mr. Horvat does a splendid job explaining the notion of frenetic intemperance, which is a cousin of unfettered consumerism. Father Sirico precisely shows that freedom requires a free market and that greed is no friend of capitalism. Rather, greed flourishes under socialism.
Not nearly as bad as the mind dead minions who grovel in the street chanting: "HOPE, CHANGE, HOPE, CHANGE, OBAMA, OBAMA....."
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.
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.
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.
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
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
then maybe ‘your’ pope ought to do the same
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.
As what Nifster?
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.
What a c completely unchristian thing to say and dead wrong at the same time.
“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
So you wish the Pope to talk about the Pope.:)I don’t understand.
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.
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!!!!
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.
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.
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.
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.