Anyone listen to Rush Limbaugh today?

[jenkiedad]

It was about a half hour into his show. I distinctly heard him criticizing popes. And the church. But then I had to leave so I certainly missed a lot.

As a man who has had 4 marriages, adultery and some other accusations which may or may not be true I do have a problem with him representing conservatives. And his life style does not represent Christianity as I know it.

Making it clear I may have missed something important.

Was this the discussion you were referring to?

rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/09/11/taxes_and_welfare_do_not_equal_charity

RUSH: " I want you to ask yourself a question: In your life, your entire life, have you ever thought of the government – have you ever thought of taxes and welfare together – as charity? Now, we know the Catholic Church did. They’ve admitted it. Various prelates, archbishops, monsignors, popes, over the years, we know have equated high taxes and activist government with charity. That’s why they supported it. “Liberalism, socialism equals charity. That’s what we churches do, is we help the poor.”

“Charity is not donated at the point of a gun or threat of a prison cell, a la Obamacare! Charity is not conscripted. Charity is willingly given from the heart, or for the tax deduction. But you have no choice when it comes to taxes. I’d like to see how the government stacks up as a charity anyway based on the usual standards that we would measure other charities by: The administrative costs, what are the real results, the net dollars, all that. I bet it would look bad.”

What’s the beef?

 

[sedonaman]

…
The opening three paragraphs–

But I’m asking: In your lifetime, have you ever heard anybody who has achieved in life or is successful and maybe rich argue for tax increases – or argue against tax cuts on the basis, “No, no. We need to help people. It’s charity. The government’s charity” – as a way of making themselves feel good and look good to others?

Doesn’t the bulk of liberal Hollywood in effect do this?

 

[april32010]

Was this the discussion you were referring to?

rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/09/11/taxes_and_welfare_do_not_equal_charity

RUSH: " I want you to ask yourself a question: In your life, your entire life, have you ever thought of the government – have you ever thought of taxes and welfare together – as charity? Now, we know the Catholic Church did. They’ve admitted it. Various prelates, archbishops, monsignors, popes, over the years, we know have equated high taxes and activist government with charity. That’s why they supported it. “Liberalism, socialism equals charity. That’s what we churches do, is we help the poor.”

“Charity is not donated at the point of a gun or threat of a prison cell, a la Obamacare! Charity is not conscripted. Charity is willingly given from the heart, or for the tax deduction. But you have no choice when it comes to taxes. I’d like to see how the government stacks up as a charity anyway based on the usual standards that we would measure other charities by: The administrative costs, what are the real results, the net dollars, all that. I bet it would look bad.”

What’s the beef?

thats the beef, the Church was the first to condemn
socialism, the Church doesn’t "equate high taxes and activist government with charity "

 

[LorenC]

It was about a half hour into his show. I distinctly heard him criticizing popes. And the church. But then I had to leave so I certainly missed a lot.

As a man who has had 4 marriages, adultery and some other accusations which may or may not be true I do have a problem with him representing conservatives. And his life style does not represent Christianity as I know it.

Making it clear I may have missed something important.

4 marriages??? I didn’t know that. My husband and I stopped listening to him years ago.
I will remember to pray for him today.

 

[jenkiedad]

thats the beef, the Church was the first to condemn
socialism, the Church doesn’t "equate high taxes and activist government with charity "

It would appear to be a matter of semantics; liberal versus socialist. How do you explain the Catholic Bishops that criticized Rep. Ryan’s budget because it called for reducing the rate of growth of certain social programs; aka, “drastic Draconian cuts”?

Obviously, the pronouncement of 2 or 3 Bishops does not equal the USCCB, much less the Pope. But how do you expect a non-Catholic radio talk show host to know the difference.

 

[Jeanne_S]

Not today, but it’s easy enough to find a transcript. A ctrl-f only finds “catholic” mentioned once, so maybe there was something additional?

The opening three paragraphs–

The Catholic Church as never endorsed socialism.

 

[Crescentinus]

 

[Swiss_Guy]

So? He took one guy to task for complaining about the Church. Rush’s position was, “Hey, no one is forcing you to be a Catholic.” Another time he chastised Sinead O’Neil for ripping up a photo of the pope and calling him a devil. I’m not sure these fit your statement. In any event, haven’t you ever criticized an institution you didn’t agree with?

Yes I have. But I thought that was the point about why Limbaugh was criticizing the Church.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

do you listen to him?

Not usually.

 

[jenkiedad]

The Catholic Church has never endorsed socialism.

References to this statement?

What about support for higher taxes to support greatly increased central government controlled social programs? Has that ever been endorsed?

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Really, I didn’t know that. Could you point out an encyclical that calls for a welfare system similar to the one we have here in the United States? And, are Catholics free to dissent or is this teaching infallible?

Well I don’t think the welfare system we’ve got here is ideal–far from it. So no, I can’t. But here’s Caritas in Veritate:

1. From the social point of view, systems of protection and welfare, already present in many countries in Paul VI’s day, are finding it hard and could find it even harder in the future to pursue their goals of true social justice in today’s profoundly changed environment. The global market has stimulated first and foremost, on the part of rich countries, a search for areas in which to outsource production at low cost with a view to reducing the prices of many goods, increasing purchasing power and thus accelerating the rate of development in terms of greater availability of consumer goods for the domestic market. Consequently, the market has prompted new forms of competition between States as they seek to attract foreign businesses to set up production centres, by means of a variety of instruments, including favourable fiscal regimes and deregulation of the labour market. These processes have led to a downsizing of social security systems as the price to be paid for seeking greater competitive advantage in the global market, with consequent grave danger for the rights of workers, for fundamental human rights and for the solidarity associated with the traditional forms of the social State. Systems of social security can lose the capacity to carry out their task, both in emerging countries and in those that were among the earliest to develop, as well as in poor countries. Here budgetary policies, with cuts in social spending often made under pressure from international financial institutions, can leave citizens powerless in the face of old and new risks; such powerlessness is increased by the lack of effective protection on the part of workers’ associations. Through the combination of social and economic change, trade union organizations experience greater difficulty in carrying out their task of representing the interests of workers, partly because Governments, for reasons of economic utility, often limit the freedom or the negotiating capacity of labour unions. Hence traditional networks of solidarity have more and more obstacles to overcome. The repeated calls issued within the Church’s social doctrine, beginning with Rerum Novarum[60], for the promotion of workers’ associations that can defend their rights must therefore be honoured today even more than in the past, as a prompt and far-sighted response to the urgent need for new forms of cooperation at the international level, as well as the local level.

1. In the search for solutions to the current economic crisis, development aid for poor countries must be considered a valid means of creating wealth for all. What aid programme is there that can hold out such significant growth prospects — even from the point of view of the world economy — as the support of populations that are still in the initial or early phases of economic development? From this perspective, more economically developed nations should do all they can to allocate larger portions of their gross domestic product to development aid, thus respecting the obligations that the international community has undertaken in this regard. One way of doing so is by reviewing their internal social assistance and welfare policies, applying the principle of subsidiarity and creating better integrated welfare systems, with the active participation of private individuals and civil society. In this way, it is actually possible to improve social services and welfare programmes, and at the same time to save resources — by eliminating waste and rejecting fraudulent claims — which could then be allocated to international solidarity. A more devolved and organic system of social solidarity, less bureaucratic but no less coordinated, would make it possible to harness much dormant energy, for the benefit of solidarity between peoples.

It’s not infallible, but it’s authoritative:

The Second Vatican Council teaches in Lumen Gentium:

“this religious submission of mind and will must be shown
in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman
pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it
must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium
is acknowledged with reverence, [and] the judgments made
by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest
mind and will. his mind and will in the matter may be
known either from the character of the documents, from
his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his
manner of speaking”

(no. 25)

 

[Swiss_Guy]

References to this statement?

What about support for higher taxes to support greatly increased central government controlled social programs? Has that ever been endorsed?

On socialism, even moderate socialism:

1. Pope Pius XI further emphasized the fundamental opposition between Communism and Christianity, and made it clear that no Catholic could subscribe even to moderate Socialism. The reason is that Socialism is founded on a doctrine of human society which is bounded by time and takes no account of any objective other than that of material well-being. Since, therefore, it proposes a form of social organization which aims solely at production, it places too severe a restraint on human liberty, at the same time flouting the true notion of social authority.

Mater et Magistra

No to increased central government (see subsidiarity), yes to higher taxes:

On the part of the rich man, it calls for great generosity, willing sacrifice and diligent effort. Each man must examine his conscience, which sounds a new call in our present times. Is he prepared to support, at his own expense, projects and undertakings designed to help the needy? Is he prepared to pay higher taxes so that public authorities may expand their efforts in the work of development? Is he prepared to pay more for imported goods, so that the foreign producer may make a fairer profit? Is he prepared to emigrate from his homeland if necessary and if he is young, in order to help the emerging nations?

Populorum Progressio

 

[april32010]

References to this statement?

What about support for higher taxes to support greatly increased central government controlled social programs? Has that ever been endorsed?

Pope Leo XIII Quod Apostolici Muneris (on socialism) papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13apost.htm , Pope Leo Xlll Rerum Novarum (On Capital and Labor) papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13rerum.htm

 

[Seeker1961]

On occasion. It depends if he agrees with what the Church is saying at the moment.

Boy, nobody are does that, do they??

 

[kykid]

I had to quit listening to Limbaugh years ago. It was not that I disagreed with his positions all the time, but that I got so upset about the discussions that I couldn’t leave them when the show was over. The segments would stay with me and I would ruminate on them over and over.

 

[wondrousgnat]

I was watching his tv show some years back when he trashed Chelsea Clinton, then 13, and it upset me so much I stopped listening to him for several years. He also had an annoying habit of making personal attacks that turned me off (like making fun of Roberts Reich’s height and calling Perot an ugly, little cannon). There was a later denial of making fun of Chelsea Clinton but I was watching the show and he did it.

 

[Seeker1961]

Rush is an interesting story, actually. Agree with him or not, like him or not-he is a brilliant businessman. He crafted a legend, almost a myth. He told people that they were not being heard, that forces were conspiring against them and that HE ALONE would be their champion. He created an Empire, and dozens of imitators. There is no Fox news without Rush, there is no Drudge report without Rush…people have even gone as far as to say that there is no GW Bush without Rush. He holds a tremendous amount of power-less than he used to after the nasty comment he made earlier this year, but I doubt he lost too many of his “dittohead” following. (not an insult, his loyal followers call themselves that) It’s still really important to a conservative candidate that Rush speak positively about them.

In the end, I still believe that if Rush could have made the same $$ talking about something else, he’d have done it.

 

[SGTTOM]

Early in his show he was sounding critical of the Catholic church. Blaming priests and popes for support of welfare. Then I had to leave and could not hear the rest of it. Left too early.
Anybody know where he was going with it?

I heard this on the radio yesterday I believe. I left to early to tell where he was going with it exactly. I myself am not a fan of government welfare either. I think Rush is just sometimes confused about what the Church actually teaches vs what a lot of Catholics say, which isn’t always official church teaching.

 

[KP3243]

It would appear to be a matter of semantics; liberal versus socialist. How do you explain the Catholic Bishops that criticized Rep. Ryan’s budget because it called for reducing the rate of growth of certain social programs; aka, “drastic Draconian cuts”?

Obviously, the pronouncement of 2 or 3 Bishops does not equal the USCCB, much less the Pope. But how do you expect a non-Catholic radio talk show host to know the difference.

Bishops Critique Their Handling of Ryan Budget Before Approving New Statement on Economic Crisis:

Read more: ncregister.com/daily-news/bishops-critique-their-handling-of-ryan-budget-before-approving-new-stateme/#ixzz26HQjELVC
ncregister.com/daily-news/bishops-critique-their-handling-of-ryan-budget-before-approving-new-stateme/#ixzz23dwJH5Jz

 

[beehumble]

A few lessons from careful reading of the Gospels:

Those who don’t work don’t eat - this applies to those who can work, have work, and are lazy and seeking excuses to not work, while enjoying the fruit of others’ labors. Paul condemns this.

The Good Samaritan - when someone is in dire straits, and we are aware of it and can provide, we should help them get back on their feet. But the Samaritan left money to cover expenses for the person’s healing, not a life-long wage. It is our merciful duty to help people in need get back on their feet, whenever we can. We are our brother’s keeper. And those back on their feet are to resume their daily labors and not expect a perpetual handout.

Jesus said our Father knows what we need and provides and even the sparrows have food to eat. But note, God does not put the food in the nest (He certainly could) - the birds must go out each day and get it through their labor.

God bless you.