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.
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.
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.
Limbaugh cut to the chase, which is his specialty.
Just how much ‘respect’ for ‘national sovereignty’ is ‘due’ with this new level of global control that the pope proposes?
When invoked, ‘due respect’ almost always turns out to be little respect at all.
Some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world.
This is really an ignorant statement. Economic growth, encouraged by a free market, most certainly does bring about greater justice and inclusiveness. It does this because economic growth lifts people out of poverty, and doing this always brings greater justice and inclusiveness to people. Always. This statement, whether it is Marxist, Peronist, Socialist, or whatever-ist, is dumb.
The truth, and this is uncomfortable when viewed alongside some of the statements of this pontiff, is that these economic systems he attacks have done more to lift people out of poverty, put food on people's tables, and give them dignity in work than any church has ever done in history. And that includes the Catholic Church.
The Pope is expected to be an expert in spiritual matters, and to have authority to lead and guide in that field. It saddens me that so often they choose to preach not about the Gospel, but about economic policies that they so obviously don't understand. It would be analogous to the chairman of the Federal Reserve publishing a document on how surgeons should use anaesthesia.
Rush’s comments were probably mistranslated and distorted by the news babblers. What he meant instead of what the news media report he said is the important thing to see.
Got to remember that while Pope Francis was as a priest a Jesuit, Pope Francis’s spirituality is much, much more Francisian, which besides concern for creation, is a spirituality that is concerned for the poor.
The Pope confuses Charity with the socialist redistribution of wealth. Karl Marx was not the Christ.
Looks to me that Rush Limbaugh is right about this pope.
In other words, to respond to post 26, Pope Francis is a hybred.
NY’er, can you, could you, explain what the writer, Mr. Horn, meant when trying to explain what the Pope said? Quote, “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).”
Specifically, what does “global control” mean and who does the controlling? If it isn’t “control” effected by a one-world government/entity, then by whom? This is a comment that blows my mind and I am thinking of it in an international sense, not just nationally. If you’ve any thought on this, I would appreciate hearing it.
Thanks.
According to Pope Francis, those who advocate the “trickle down theory” are “naive.” According to Jesus, those who call their brother fool are guilty of murder.
Ping