Rush Limbaugh going off on Pope Francis's exhortation

[JayMagoo]

I suppose it was inevitable that Rush Limbaugh would run afoul of the Jesuit Priest who became our present Pope. There is nothing new insofar as Catholic doctrine or culture in Pope Francis’s words. It goes back 2,000 years to the teaching of Jesus Christ and has been repeated time and time again throughout the New Testament and the teachings of the church.
What is new is the monumental growing arrogance and stupidity of the radio politician commentator who calls himself Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh in recent years has been getting away with destroying innocent people whom he disagrees with and gathering a larger and larger numbers of listeners.
Maybe by challenging the 2,000 year old tradition of Catholicism that calls for looking after the poor and the sick and discouraging the greedy acquisition of great wealth by a few to the detriment of many, Limbaugh may have bitten off more than he can chew.
A groundswell of anger at Limbaugh’s blasphemy is growing. I hope he is not only silenced, but I also hope Limbaugh’s folly brings new attention to Pope Francis’s message and this drift toward greedy and selfish materialism is reversed.

 

[ishii]

A groundswell of anger at Limbaugh’s blasphemy is growing. .

In what way did Limbaugh blaspheme?

 

[JayMagoo]

according to the dictionary on Wikipedia, “Blasphemy is the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God, to religious or holy persons or things, or toward something considered sacred or inviolable.”
I believe the practice and belief of the Catholic Church and of Catholic theologians, based on 2,000 years of pronouncements starting with those by Jesus Christ and continuing to today might be considered sacred or inviolable. Pope’s are not infallible so they can err, but Pope Francis was continuing a tradition of care for the sick and needy that is part and parcel of Christianity. For someone like Limbaugh whose understanding of that was twisted to support his belief in today’s unique type of capitalism, is at the very least in error. Add to that Limbaugh’s reputation for bombastic and gratuitous misinterpretations and insults, it’s not hard to support that accusation of blasphemy when he criticizes the Pope because of the Pope’s support of traditional “Christian charity.”

 

[Abu]

Fr of Jazz
Your #110 raised very important doubts on some comments of Pope Francis.
Especially on:
“absolute autonomy of the marketplace” and those who “reject the right of states, charged with vigilance for the common good, to exercise any form of control” (#56, also 202),

There is no unregulated free enterprise which has never existed in any society or country, only in the minds of a few economists; no one is thus able to point to “absolute autonomy of the marketplace”.

Popes have warned explicitly against thinking that they have unique insights into specific matters of economic policy:
“If I were to pronounce on any single matter of a prevailing economic problem, I should be interfering with the freedom of men to work out their own affairs. Certain cases must be solved in the domain of facts, case by case as they occur…[M]en must realise in deeds those things, the principles of which have been placed beyond dispute…[T]hese things one must leave to the solution of time and experience.” [Pope Leo XIII. Quoted in *The Church And The Market, Dr Thomas E. Woods, Lexington Books, 2005, p 4].

 

[ishii]

according to the dictionary on Wikipedia, “Blasphemy is the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God, to religious or holy persons or things, or toward something considered sacred or inviolable.”
I believe the practice and belief of the Catholic Church and of Catholic theologians, based on 2,000 years of pronouncements starting with those by Jesus Christ and continuing to today might be considered sacred or inviolable. Pope’s are not infallible so they can err, but Pope Francis was continuing a tradition of care for the sick and needy that is part and parcel of Christianity. For someone like Limbaugh whose understanding of that was twisted to support his belief in today’s unique type of capitalism, is at the very least in error. Add to that Limbaugh’s reputation for bombastic and gratuitous misinterpretations and insults, it’s not hard to support that accusation of blasphemy when he criticizes the Pope because of the Pope’s support of traditional “Christian charity.”

JayMagoo-

Questioning or even criticizing something the pope says about economics is not blasphemy.

Ishii

 

[estesbob]

JayMagoo-

Questioning or even criticizing something the pope says about economics is not blasphemy.

Ishii

I think the problem is he was criticizing liberalism-which is blasphemy if one worships at the altar of liberalism .

I personally believe Limbaugh’s remarks showed a basic misunderstanding of Catholicism and what the Pope said-but blasphemy it was not.

 

[frattura30]

I suppose it was inevitable that Rush Limbaugh would run afoul of the Jesuit Priest who became our present Pope. There is nothing new insofar as Catholic doctrine or culture in Pope Francis’s words. It goes back 2,000 years to the teaching of Jesus Christ and has been repeated time and time again throughout the New Testament and the teachings of the church.
What is new is the monumental growing arrogance and stupidity of the radio politician commentator who calls himself Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh in recent years has been getting away with destroying innocent people whom he disagrees with and gathering a larger and larger numbers of listeners.
Maybe by challenging the 2,000 year old tradition of Catholicism that calls for looking after the poor and the sick and discouraging the greedy acquisition of great wealth by a few to the detriment of many, Limbaugh may have bitten off more than he can chew.
A groundswell of anger at Limbaugh’s blasphemy is growing. I hope he is not only silenced, but I also hope Limbaugh’s folly brings new attention to Pope Francis’s message and this drift toward greedy and selfish materialism is reversed.

I listened to Rush when he spoke about the Pope. He expressed his disappointment in his “trickle-down” comment. In a very short time, the USA rose to being the most powerful country in the world. Feeding the world and being the first to aid countries in need. Our “trickle-down” system was the engine behind the greatness of the US and in turn “trickled-down” to the rest of the world. Most importantly, the US rose to such great heights because of our inclusion of God. God was trusted in our money schools and court systems…and our everyday lives. Children rose to pledge allegiance “under God”. Today I am afraid, the left in this country voted to remove God from the democrat party, and are responsible for the removal of God in every aspect of society.

Its unfortunate you hope Limbaugh is silenced. Free speech is so very important… even though you disagree he has every right to his opinion.

 

[ishii]

Two very good points:

I think the problem is he was criticizing liberalism-which is blasphemy if one worships at the altar of liberalism .

I personally believe Limbaugh’s remarks showed a basic misunderstanding of Catholicism and what the Pope said-but blasphemy it was not.

Well said. I might not agree with Limbaugh here. But I think the use of “trickle down” is worthy of criticism. I have heard famous Catholics who display just as much ignorance as Rush apparently has. But yes, according to the left, the ultimate blasphemy is made conservatives who dare criticize liberalism.

I listened to Rush when he spoke about the Pope. He expressed his disappointment in his “trickle-down” comment. In a very short time, the USA rose to being the most powerful country in the world. Feeding the world and being the first to aid countries in need. Our “trickle-down” system was the engine behind the greatness of the US and in turn “trickled-down” to the rest of the world. Most importantly, the US rose to such great heights because of our inclusion of God. God was trusted in our money schools and court systems…and our everyday lives. Children rose to pledge allegiance “under God”. Today I am afraid, the left in this country voted to remove God from the democrat party, and are responsible for the removal of God in every aspect of society.

Its unfortunate you hope Limbaugh is silenced. Free speech is so very important… even though you disagree he has every right to his opinion.

The US has done much to advance the cause of freedom - the Marshall Plan comes to mind, and the Berlin airlift, etc.

But let’s not use the perjorative term “trickle down” used by the left to try to discredit the free-market. If anything, the policies of the left are trickle down charity - as everything trickles down from the govt.

Ishii

 

[ProVobis]

I personally believe Limbaugh’s remarks showed a basic misunderstanding of Catholicism and what the Pope said-but blasphemy it was not.

I don’t know what to think. He went on to say:

“The Catholic Church, the American Catholic Church has an annual budget of $170 billion. I think that’s more than General Electric earns every year. And the Catholic Church of America is the largest landholder in Manhattan. I mean, they have a lot of money. They raise a lot of money. They wouldn’t be able to reach out the way they do without a lot of money.”

vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/world-news/detail/articolo/usa-us-estados-unidos-papa-pope-el-papa-30384/

 

[CaptFun]

This “controversy” has some positive side effects. Limbaugh speaking live on the benefits of the capitalistic system is his specialty.

Pope Francis publishing a thoughtful document on how we as Children of God should be good stewards of His gifts and not defer to ***systems to do our work for us ***(let alone be false gods) is more brain food.

I too was shocked at a seemingly (by comparison) worldly side trip into political economics by the Pope that used language similar to that of the political left (in the English translation version). On reading the WHOLE document … it is not about economics as its main thrust at all.

That was the ONLY part of Evangelii Gaudium that was obscure to me. The rest of it was clearly a call to the faithful to be more so … especially in Evangelizing the world.

Then I saw this:

A deliberate mistranslation (in the English version of Pope’s document)?
the-american-catholic.com/2013/12/07/popewatch-deliberate-mistranslation/

I have been following, and for the benefit of my monolingual friends, translating homilies and talks by then-Cdl. Bergoglio for at least the last five years and posted these translations on my blog. I also, for professional reasons, wind up translating mountains of reports, analyses, etc. between Latin American and Anglosphere clients.
Charity forbids me from accurately expressing exactly how abysmal the Official Vatican English translation AND ONLY the English translation happens to be. (This, of course, is nothing new.) I, personally, do not find it credible to say such a travesty of a translation is the result of simple carelessness, or ineptitude. To me – and this is only my opinion – in comparing both the English to the (presumably original) Spanish and back again, it seems decidedly deliberate.

In fact, I am so incensed by this, that I have taken the liberty to begin retranslating Evangelii Gaudium on my blog. (It’s up there now at jmgarciaiii.blogspot.com for anyone who’d like to read it, with the caveat it’s in very much a work-in-progress.)

When someone who is native-level fluent in both languages (as I am) contrasts the two versions, the differences are staggering. The Holy Father extols entrepreneurship, the increase of goods, demands that groups within the Church actually help the poor instead of talking or lobbying, decries the accumulation of national debt. The list goes on and on.
** Published Saturday, December 7, A.D. 2013 **| By Donald R. McClarey

Followed by Limbaugh’s commenting upon Time Magazine’s naming Francis its “Man of the Year” in the midst of this “controversy”. Some Catholic callers on Limbaugh’s show mentioned possible mistranslations in English, and (for everyone including Limbaugh) to read the Pope’s own document - which barely mentions economics on the whole - instead of just the reports on it that make that the whole story. It is more of a pastoral admonishment for the faithful to favor people over things.

rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/12/11/did_el_rushbo_make_il_papa_time_magazine_s_person_of_the_year

RUSH: All right, folks, I’m gonna tell you what I think really happened on this pope business. I do not think and nobody is ever gonna be able to convince me that TIME Magazine named Pope Francis Man of the Year to thumb me in the eye or any of that. I don’t think that’s what happened.

Here’s what happened. Whether you want to believe it or not, the left hates and despises Christianity, and particularly the Catholic Church 'cause it’s the biggest. They do not like it at all. I firmly believe that the left has been infiltrating the Catholic Church over the years with the full intent of discrediting it from within. There is no respect for the Catholic Church or love or appreciation. As I say, the left and abortion, the left and gay marriage, the left and birth control, the Catholic Church leads the opposition to those things. And yet Il Papa has been named TIME Magazine’s Man of the Year. And TIME Magazine is the left-wing media. They are Time Warner. They are it. They are as much ranking members as any other organization. New York Times, Washington Post, you name it.

I think what happened here is they became aware of what Il Papa said about capitalism, aided by me. I did make a big deal of it. I think when they found out about it, they were so excited that the Catholic Church, which they’ve been trying to destroy, sided against some aspect, a major aspect of this country, that they had to reward it. I think that’s what happened.

If more people read Evangelii Gaudium due to its higher profile. Wonderful!

Pope Francis as “Man of the Year?” One of the best choices ever. Beats Stalin and Hitler (former Men of the Year … some of them were BAD men of the year!) by a google.

Limbaugh’s show allowing Catholics to clarify things and having Jesus mentioned (religion was once off base for callers to the show btw) is another positive.

On the subject of ethics and economics meeting on holy ground … here’s a little brain food from Blessed Fulton Sheen:

americaspartynews.com/talk/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=23796&posts=9

“We need a modification of the wage system, so that the worker may share in profits, ownership or management of his industry. When labor leaders and capitalists thus agree together to give labor some capital to defend, there will no longer be two rival groups in industry: labor and management will become two co-operating members working together, as the two legs of a man co-operate to help him walk.”

** --Fulton J. Sheen, February, 1954**

 

[_Abyssinia]

Some of the passages in the “Evangelii Gaudium” attracted the criticism of ultraconservatives in the USA. As a Pope, what does it feel like to be called a “Marxist”?

“The Marxist ideology is wrong. But I have met many Marxists in my life who are good people, so I don’t feel offended.”

The most striking part of the Exhortation was where it refers to an economy that “kills”…

“There is nothing in the Exhortation that cannot be found in the social Doctrine of the Church. I wasn’t speaking from a technical point of view, what I was trying to do was to give a picture of what is going on. The only specific quote I used was the one regarding the “trickle-down theories” which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and social inclusiveness in the world. The promise was that when the glass was full, it would overflow, benefitting the poor. But what happens instead, is that when the glass is full, it magically gets bigger nothing ever comes out for the poor. This was the only reference to a specific theory. I was not, I repeat, speaking from a technical point of view but according to the Church’s social doctrine. This does not mean being a Marxist.”

lastampa.it/2013/12/14/esteri/vatican-insider/en/never-be-afraid-of-tenderness-5BqUfVs9r7W1CJIMuHqNeI/pagina.html

 

[Tarquin]

When there is this much love-and-hate, it’s obvious the subject is having a wide and profound influence on society, and that in turn draws out the strongest emotions in response, whether the sub-issues (socialism, capitalism, etc.-ism) are important (blasphemy, heresy, anti-Catholic persecution) or trivial (slip of the tongue, individual opinion, personal anti-Limbaugh hatred).

 

[WarriorQueen]

I bring a broadcast background to my response. I worked in radio for a number of years, but I have to say I avoided talk radio, until I was hired by a station to oversee the news department, which I kept totally separate from the talk side of things, for obvious reasons. The purpose of talk radio (and Rush Limbaugh is great at this) is to say outrageous things, not necessarily true, and whip up controversy. That controversy is the bread and butter of Limbaugh’s show, and the reason he is on the air. It enables him to pay the bills and then some.

Generally speaking, there are two better responses to being the subject of this type of inflammatory speech. You can either ignore it, or you can choose to respond to it by speaking the truth. I was pleased to see Pope Francis respond directly to what was said, because it showed that he wasn’t afraid to speak the truth to someone who makes money hand over fist by twisting things, and making wild accusations.

As a journalist, I would put Limbaugh’s show in the same category of some others who claim to be news, although what they put out is not truthful or objective. Part of the reason I am not currently working in the industry is because I am frankly embarrassed at what some news agencies are putting out there. It’s not the truth, and it is done to deliberately mislead people. Sad when that is the only way to get someone on your side. If we stick with the truth and do what is right, there is no need for spin.

I am on this forum, though I am not a Catholic, in part because I have great respect for Pope Francis. I have no doubt he can handle the controversy and then some, but Limbaugh’s cheap words had just one goal: to enflame the masses that unfortunately still listen to him even when he manipulates things to his own ends. I know it can be hard, because he, like a lot of broadcasters,is supposed to be professional, and once upon a time there were ethical standards governing what went out on the airwaves. Sadly those days went away when corporations were allowed to move in and take them over.

It’s been a few years now since one of the “news” television stations was literally taken to court because what they were putting out was totally inaccurate and didn’t meet the standard for news. The court ruled that meeting the standard didn’t matter, and they could call themselves whatever they wanted, even though they weren’t actually broadcasting news. I only pray that we eventually get back to having integrity in the news rooms, and in those who deliver the words we listen to every day.

 

[frattura30]

I bring a broadcast background to my response. I worked in radio for a number of years, but I have to say I avoided talk radio, until I was hired by a station to oversee the news department, which I kept totally separate from the talk side of things, for obvious reasons. The purpose of talk radio (and Rush Limbaugh is great at this) is to say outrageous things, not necessarily true, and whip up controversy. That controversy is the bread and butter of Limbaugh’s show, and the reason he is on the air. It enables him to pay the bills and then some.

Generally speaking, there are two better responses to being the subject of this type of inflammatory speech. You can either ignore it, or you can choose to respond to it by speaking the truth. I was pleased to see Pope Francis respond directly to what was said, because it showed that he wasn’t afraid to speak the truth to someone who makes money hand over fist by twisting things, and making wild accusations.

As a journalist, I would put Limbaugh’s show in the same category of some others who claim to be news, although what they put out is not truthful or objective. Part of the reason I am not currently working in the industry is because I am frankly embarrassed at what some news agencies are putting out there. It’s not the truth, and it is done to deliberately mislead people. Sad when that is the only way to get someone on your side. If we stick with the truth and do what is right, there is no need for spin.

I am on this forum, though I am not a Catholic, in part because I have great respect for Pope Francis. I have no doubt he can handle the controversy and then some, but Limbaugh’s cheap words had just one goal: to enflame the masses that unfortunately still listen to him even when he manipulates things to his own ends. I know it can be hard, because he, like a lot of broadcasters,is supposed to be professional, and once upon a time there were ethical standards governing what went out on the airwaves. Sadly those days went away when corporations were allowed to move in and take them over.

It’s been a few years now since one of the “news” television stations was literally taken to court because what they were putting out was totally inaccurate and didn’t meet the standard for news. The court ruled that meeting the standard didn’t matter, and they could call themselves whatever they wanted, even though they weren’t actually broadcasting news. I only pray that we eventually get back to having integrity in the news rooms, and in those who deliver the words we listen to every day.

After reading most of the comments here, its easy to tell who the liberals and conservatives are. I’ve been listening to Rush since the early 90s and I would say Rush simply reports his political thoughts and values which are very Catholic. As difficult as this might be for liberals he has a dedicated and very large listening audience. To make the claim he is saying outrageous things or to enflame is groundless from my years of listening. The left likes to labeled their enemies as homophobic, racist, and hate speech when it goes against their belief structure. Phil Robertson, a believer in Christ is the lefts new target. I strongly believe the communist party which is operating through the liberal progressive and democrat parties are targeting Catholic and Christians for their beliefs. If what Phil Robertson believes is hate speech then it won’t be long before liberals go after the bible and deem it hate speech. They do these things systematically but thats where they are going. Nazi Germany did the very same thing.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Rush simply reports his political thoughts and values which are very Catholic.

From which I suppose we must conclude that it is “very Catholic” to be critical of the Pope.

To make the claim he is saying outrageous things or to enflame is groundless from my years of listening.

Years of listening can cause you to grow accustomed to what Rush says, so that what seems outrageous and inflammatory to others seems fine and normal to you.

 

[frattura30]

From which I suppose we must conclude that it is “very Catholic” to be critical of the Pope.

Years of listening can cause you to grow accustomed to what Rush says, so that what seems outrageous and inflammatory to others seems fine and normal to you.

Very Catholic would be pro-life as Christ is. Christ would not approve abortion as a woman’s right. Sadly, many Catholics or Christians who voted for a pro-choice president are not believers. When Christ walked the earth, there were people critical of him. He loved them regardless and the Pope will as well.

When you become more Christ-like, you see things as He does. Rush speaks with many Christian values. Believers are drawn to the truth. Men and women who speak their faith and values are being persecuted in the press and media. Jesus said these things would happen when you follow him.

Matthew 10:22 And you shall be hated by all men for my name’s sake: but he that shall persevere unto the end, he shall be saved.

Luke 21:17 And you shall be hated by all men for my name’s sake.

John 15:21 But all these things they will do to you for my name’s sake: because they know not him who sent me.

Mark 13:13 And ye will be hated of all on account of my name; but he that has endured to the end, he shall be saved.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Very Catholic would be pro-life as Christ is. Christ would not approve abortion as a woman’s right. Sadly, many Catholics or Christians who voted for a pro-choice president are not believers.

I suspect that Rush finds this pro-life position very convenient to him as a means to stir up hatred of his political enemies who are enemies because of issues unrelated to pro-life. I see no evidence that he holds this pro-life position for its own sake.

 

[ishii]

I suspect that Rush finds this pro-life position very convenient to him as a means to stir up hatred of his political enemies who are enemies because of issues unrelated to pro-life. I see no evidence that he holds this pro-life position for its own sake.

Typical liberal ad hominem argument - attack the person rather than their argument. Never fails.

Ishii

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Typical liberal ad hominem argument - attack the person rather than their argument. Never fails.

Ishii

Rush’s character and motivations were the issue being discussed, especially after the glowing praise his character received in post #128. My observations just bring balance to this detractor of our Pope.

 

[JamesCaruso]

My husband - a Catholic - just came in all upset because of what he now thinks the Pope’s position is on socialist policies. Rush Limbaugh read excerpts from Pope Francis’ 224 page exhortation. I said “you know he probably took things out of context” and he said “no”, that he “read it from the document itself”. But again, that doesn’t mean it wasn’t taken out of context. I told him to read it for himself and not rely on Rush’s interpretation.

In one of my last months of my classes with my catechist, we covered issues concerning social justice and he showed me those sections of the catechism and we reviewed it and examples and any reasonable person would have to agree that it all made perfect sense. There were things there that would anger Republicans & Liberals alike and please Republicans and Liberals alike. But if one truly considers the catechism on these issues, regardless of your politics, its hard to see (at least for me) how one would fear God and disagree.

I guess I’m going to have to show him the catechism for the Pope isn’t promoting anything new I’m sure though I haven’t yet read the document. I would surely never rely on someone like Rush Limbaugh to interpret it for me. (I have no idea what his religion is)

Rae

Some people treat capitalism like it is religion, like it can do no wrong, that simple market forces will always lead to the best of solutions. Baloney! Like any humanly contrived system, it needs to be regulated. Without constraints, capitalism would still be exploiting workers with unsafe workplaces, pitiful wages, and a host of other evils that have been brought under control by government and unions. Yes, capitalism may be the best economic hope of world, but that does not mean that it does not need to be reined in to make it a decent and humane economic system. Regulation is not synonymous with socialism. The Pope rightly discerns that government has a certain responsibility to its citizens. I am sure the Pope would support some sort of health care guarantee for the poor, but that does not mean he supports socialism. After all, what is government but the people, and what is the responsibility of people in the moral order, but to love one another? This is not to say that we need to have a government controlled approach to health care and other community problems. There are ways to solve our responsibility to the needy through free enterprise solutions. It would take some government regulation, but it would not have to entail a government takeover of the industry. We should all work to achieve more fairness in society while maintaining as much freedom as possible. Too often we go to one extreme or the other, but hopefully we can learn to find the happy medium. Free enterprise with only those constraints necessary to ensure fairness should be our goal. Totally unbridled capitalism that leads to the tyranny of large corporations is no better than total socialism in which the government is the tyrant. We don’t want a country where only people with money are free, nor a country where no one is free under a large oppressive government. We need to find a happy medium.