Posted on 12/05/2013 6:26:41 AM PST by NYer
In a recent segment on his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh talked about the popes new apostolic exhortation Evangelii Gaudium. I dont have the space to address everything Limbaugh said, but what struck me was his mischaracterization of Pope Francis's comments about economics.
The fundamental problem was that Limbaugh chose to quote not what Pope Francis wrote but a Washington Post article on the exhortation, which stated:
Pope Francis attacked unfettered capitalism as "a new tyranny" and beseeched global leaders to fight poverty and growing inequality, in a document on Tuesday setting out a platform for his papacy and calling for a renewal of the Catholic Church. . . . In it, Francis went further than previous comments criticizing the global economic system, attacking the "idolatry of money."
Limbaugh responded by saying, This is just pure Marxism coming out of the mouth of the pope. Unfettered capitalism? That doesn't exist anywhere. 'Unfettered capitalism' is a liberal socialist phrase to describe the United States.
Comrade Francis?
Granted, it takes hours to read this massive document but, for someone whose words are heard by millions of people, before calling the pope a "Marxist" a simple use of the control+F function would have been warranted. If Limbaugh had done that, he would have found that the phrase unfettered capitalism does not appear in Evangelii Gaudium.
Neither is the global economy the main theme of this exhortation; rather, it's only one area where Pope Francis is calling on the Church to evangelize the world. He describes specific financial and cultural challenges facing the human community and then addresses the temptations of pastors who must face these challenges. Nowhere does the Pope blame humanitys woes on the concept of the free market or demand a Marxist government to save mankind.
A Betrayal of John Paul II?
Limbaugh later said, [J]uxtaposed against the actions of Pope John Paul II, this pope and the things that he released yesterday or recently are really striking.
No, they arent. In his 1991 encyclical Centesimus Annus, Pope John Paul II reflected on socialism and capitalism in light of the recent fall of the Soviet Union. Although he acknowledged that profit has a legitimate role in the function of a business and that the Marxist solution to economic inequality had failed, he also spoke of the inadequacies of capitalism and said that profit is the not the only indicator that a business is doing well. The human dignity of workers matter too, and if capitalism is left unchecked it becomes ruthless and leads to inhuman exploitation. Pope Francis's words are consistent with John Paul's.
Limbaugh continued:
You talk about unfettered, this is an unfettered anti-capitalist dictate from Pope Francis. And listen to this. This is an actual quote from what he wrote. "The culture of prosperity deadens us. We are thrilled if the market offers us something new to purchase. In the meantime, all those lives stunted for lack of opportunity seem a mere spectacle. They fail to move us." I mean, that's pretty profound. That's going way beyond matters that are ethical. This is almost a statement about who should control financial markets. He says that the global economy needs government control.
But the Pope is not saying that. He is saying that a global economy needs global control, not government control in the form of some creepy one-world government that runs everything. Pope Francis said, If we really want to achieve a healthy world economy, what is needed at this juncture of history is a more efficient way of interacting which, with due regard for the sovereignty of each nation [emphasis added], ensures the economic well-being of all countries, not just of a few (206).
A Complex Question
The Church teaches that the dignity of the human person and the management of global economies is more complex than just choosing "capitalism" over "socialism/communism." What is required is an approach that respects individual freedom without allowing that freedom to become some all-consuming monster that tramples the weak and poor.
In Centesimus Annus, Pope John Paul II was asked if capitalism should be the dominant economic model in light of the fall of the USSR. His answer is insightful, and I think it's an excellent parallel to Pope Francis's attitude on the subject. Pope John Paul II said:
The answer is obviously complex. If by "capitalism" is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative, even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a "business economy," "market economy" or simply "free economy." But if by "capitalism" is meant a system in which freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed within a strong juridical framework which places it at the service of human freedom in its totality and sees it as a particular aspect of that freedom, the core of which is ethical and religious, then the reply is certainly negative.
The reality is that the Catholic Church, and Pope Francis included, cannot simply say it is for or against capitalism. Its a complex question. While the Washington Post said Pope Francis issued a decidedly populist teaching the Pope said in Evangelii Gaudium that he was not arguing for an irresponsible populism, or a solution that naively pits the poor against the rich (204).
On the other hand, while the Pope might agree with Limbaugh that Adam Smiths invisible hand can lift some people out of poverty, it can also strangle the life out of the poor, and so the Pope says in that same paragraph that we can no longer trust the market alone to ensure that all people are treated with dignity.
In closing, I think that the following paragraph from the Popes exhortation is something that should be mailed to Limbaugh and maybe we can turn down the heat just a little bit:
If anyone feels offended by my words, I would respond that I speak them with affection and with the best of intentions, quite apart from any personal interest or political ideology. My words are not those of a foe or an opponent. I am interested only in helping those who are in thrall to an individualistic, indifferent and self-centered mentality to be freed from those unworthy chains and to attain a way of living and thinking which is more humane, noble and fruitful, and which will bring dignity to their presence on this earth (208).
FR would be a better place if you would go away.
No, I never heard that. But what does that have to do with what we are talking about?
If hes using justice as the standard liberal code word for income redistribution,...
________________________________
That a might big IF.
:-)
Let us pray for Francis, our Pope.
May the Lord preserve him, and give him life, and make him blessed upon the earth, and deliver him not up to the will of his enemies. [Psalm 40:3)
O God, Shepherd and Ruler of all Thy faithful people, look mercifully upon Thy servant Francis, whom Thou hast chosen as shepherd to preside over Thy Church. Grant him, we beseech Thee, that by his word and example, he may edify those over whom he hath charge, so that together with the flock committed to him, may he attain everlasting life. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.
Yep, bitching about “income equality” is Marxism, pure and simple. If you’re not a Marxist, “income equality” is neither a goal nor a concern. Under capitalism, if someone has more income, it simply means they’ve been very successful at producing goods and services that people want to buy. Every dollar they’ve legally earned is a measure of how much they’ve improved people’s lives.
Ronald Reagan was Presbyterian who was incredibly and simultaneously stern, compassionate, inspiring and motivating to Americans. He made people proud to be American and to try harder but he was no pushover and everyone knew this.
As for his actions on immigration, RR did not have the benefit of hindsight as we have today. Latinos represented a minuscule portion of the population during RR’s terms and their numbers inside the USA were not clear at all. There were practically no day laborer centers with hundreds of Mexicans or homes with 25 and 30 Mexicans living in them or so many on food stamps and Medicaid. Practically none of that existed in RR’s time. It was estimated that only about 2 million would be granted amnesty. He also worked a deal to help foster industries inside Mexico as a way of enticing the population there to stay put.
And remember RR brought the economy roaring back to life so there were plenty of jobs for everyone. Remember too that Mexicans are like brothers to many of us; we don’t hate them. What we are against is how they are used by the democrats and how certain of their leaders advocate reconquista that signals they would never be loyal Americans but would always be required to have allegiance to Mexico.
If RR was President today, you can take it to the bank that he would with the knowledge and experience we have today, he would not support immigration reform in its present proposal.
RR would likely not have built the border fence either because he didn’t like walls. But he would have beefed up border security in every other respect and he would have pinned Mexico on a deal to cooperate on border security.
One thing is for sure, RR would have demolished the Ted Kennedy chain immigration because of the rampant abuses and costs it has created.
I know that Ronald Reagan always had America first in his heart.
I pray that he comes to know clarity. Amen.
He said he wants an economic system with more "justice" and "inclusiveness." That has absolutely nothing to do with your interpretation. If he had said what you said, quoted below, I'd be all for it. But he didn't, not even close. It's wishful thinking on your part.
The Gospel isnt about how to make money. Its about how we are saved and how we can and do become a new and better creation through Jesus Christ.
Great post. Thanks.
Amen.
If Rush converted he would have to slow down on the wives, he’s on #4 now.
But the words “vigilance”, “states charged with”, and “control” imply forced charity for the purpose of eliminating or minimizing poor people.
______________________________________
I disagree completely. It greatly depends on the context and the motive of the one using those words.
Thanks.
The point that this encyclical wasn’t really about “economics”, rather about how is the Gospel message spread most effectively, seems lost on many. Even now. It seems many don’t want to admit that because it would put Rush in a bad light.
The fact that Rush stepped into this fray, and is now being called out for his faulty analysis, seems to have engendered “support” from his fans, to defend him from any and all criticism. Which is further complicating this issue.
I like Rush and he’s right on many issues. But any considerations of “mistranslation” aside, even beyond that, he’s clearly taken the Pope entirely out of context. By every definition of the word “context”!
I know it’s difficult for some to believe around here but Rush can be wrong sometimes.
Usually it is the well-educated, the Anglicans and other ministers who convert. One that I can think of right now is Newt Gingrich. who is definitely a historian.
I like Rush and don’t know if he’s contemplated Catholicism in that way. Perhaps we ought to pray for him. ;-)
I found this on the Acton Institute blog this morning and it may be of interest. The Acton Institute is excellent!
**Audio: Samuel Gregg Discusses Evangelii Gaudium on Kresta in the Afternoon
Continuing our roundup of Acton comment on Evangelii Gaudium, heres Actons Director of Research and Author of Tea Party Catholic Samuel Gregg joining host Al Kresta on Ave Maria Radios Kresta in the Afternoon to discuss Pope Francis Apostolic Exhortation, with particular emphasis on its economic elements. This interview took place on Monday, December 2nd.**
Link: (Scroll down to Kresta in the Afternoon December 2, 2013 Hour 1)
http://www.avemariaradio.net/archive-categories/kresta-in-the-afternoon
Thanks for a great post.
Our FRiend NKP_Vet has no aversion to trampling on ANY conservative icon in his pursuit of apologist for the church. Personally I find it crude and offensive but I do understand that he has to work with the limited tools available to him.
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.