Posted on 12/05/2013 6:26:41 AM PST by NYer
Neither do I.
As with so many other American pundits, Limbaugh thinks nationally whereas the pope speaks universally. Not holding my breath but Limbaugh owes an apology to his audience. Ping!
Sure he does.
Is the writer so clueless as to ignore the past 200+ years of human history? All the evidence is there to see that using the adjective "some" is ignorance.
I don’t get him either.
He strikes me as a communist. I’m not interested in what he has to say anymore either.
The guy is marxist. True believers will see it. Cultists won’t.
? Neither do you get Pope Francis? What is it you don't get?
NO ....... he .......... doesn't!
"Since the origins of modern capitalism around 1780, more than two-thirds of the world’s population has moved out of poverty. In China and India alone, more than 500 million have been raised out of poverty just in the last forty years. In almost every nation the average age of mortality has risen dramatically, causing populations to expand accordingly. Health in almost every dimension has been improved, and literacy has been carried to remote places it never reached before.Whatever the motives of individuals, the system has improved the plight of the poor as none ever has before. The contemporary left systematically refuses to face these undeniable facts."
-- Robert Novak, from the thread Economic Heresies of the Left (Novak on Caritas in Veritate)
There are too many words, going in circles, in what Pope Francis wrote. Anyone, not only Rush, could focus on a particular section but later, a different one, and wind up concluding that Pope Francis was almost conducting a debate with himself.
Why should the reader have to dissect and dissect down to the syllable and even then, wonder if he truly “GOT” the overall essence, or the bottom line?
I’m not insulting anyone of the Catholic faith - not my intention - I’m just calling this controversy as I see it.
The main point appears to be that he is deeply concerned about the poor, and any system which leaves them poor is in line for critique.
Uh, didn’t Jesus say, “the poor you always have with you”?
He showed no lack of concern for the poor by saying a truism.
What he wanted his followers to do is to show kindness and compassion as individuals, as his followers. Doing good to others as unto God. It is a spiritual issue that Jesus addressed, and in the process, the poor get helped. But also they are to have the Gospel of Christ preached to them.
Whether certain economic systems were or were not helpful or harmful to poor people was not Christ’s issue.
Rush is right, though, that Capitalism has done the only decent job of lifting people up to a higher economic plane.
The rest of the “isms” are crashing failures.
“The reality is that the Catholic Church, and Pope Francis included, cannot simply say it is for or against capitalism. It’s a complex question. “
It is not a copmplex question. It is quite simple. If churches don’t want to weigh in because it is too complex then stay out of it. The church has enough to do without getting into poitics anyway.
The Catholic Church also seems to be one of the biggest supporters of Amnesty for illegal immigrants.
Shortly after making the aforementioned comments, Rush said that he was being inundated with e-mails from Catholics who said that the WaPo took Pope Francis's words out of context and Rush ended the segment by saying something along the lines of, "I don't know what to believe" or something along those lines.
As a lifelong Dittohead, the only part of Rush's show that rankles me is when he quotes from The Washington Post, The New York Slimes, The LA Slimes, CNN, etc.
I don't give a flying fig what any of those outlets say about anything.
Rush should know by now to preface anything he is about to say that is in response to those sources is to say that the information he is about to comment on may be inaccurate.
I gotta get me one of those Kirk-speak keyboards.
I agree. Why can't he just come out in favor of free enterprise just as he does for the sanctity of life? We don't have to parse his words when he wants to be clear.
have we reached a time now that the media can pick and choose whatever words they want to hear from figures such as the Pope?....
because frankly, I don't know what to believe...
yes...there are winners in capitalism....winners based on effort, skill, work ethic, or talent, or intelligence, or athletic ability, or beauty.....
as opposed to communism which awards winners simply on their party affiliation....not on merit at all...
no system is perfect, but at least capitalism inspires people to better themselves and their families thru hard work....
Nowhere did Limbaugh CALL this pope a Marxist. There is a difference between calling someone a Marxist and stating that what they were hearing was classic Marxism. Maybe a thin difference but one just the same.
If the writer of this article had more journalist integrity he would also have made mention that Limbaugh has been to the Vatican several times, has considered the Catholic Church and that he had already SEVERAL emails and communications stating that he had not understood what the pope originally meant. In addition, Limbaugh, unlike some others, trusts his audience to think for themselves—in other words they don’t have to take what he says as Gospel.
As you well know, Catholics do not have to listen to the Pope when he blathers on about political or social issues. I hope non-Catholics understand that. I choose - generally - not to listen to Popes (or that oily Cardinal Dolan).
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.