Rush Limbaugh going off on Pope Francis's exhortation

[livingwordunity]

Until you pull human beings out of dumpsters and landfills in the third world you will have no idea how insanely rich we are and only then you realize our poor are not that poor compared to so many other people in the world. A lot not all but a lot of our poor in the US are obese so that tells me food isn’t a problem when you see a six year old in a landfill too weak from starvation to fight off a wild pig from eating the kid’s toes right off him then we can talk about what I define as poor. The fact we even have homeless people in the US is a crime Francis is calling us out for not reaching out to people who live right along side us we have to answer for that let alone the fact we hoard our wealth and food and DO NOT try to bring social justice by pressuring and threatening dictators who starve their poor by holding food and water hostage and the only way to help yourself or improve your life is by joining in the corrupt government usually as some sort of killing agent or prostitution which can also be forced upon women. Francis CLEARLY makes it known that spiritually poor are the most in need.

My point is that not everyone in the West is evil and heartless. I never denied that people in the West generally have a higher standard of living. But, it’s also unfair to paint people in the West with one broad brush stereotype as if everyone is guilty of murdering a homeless person and throwing them in a dumpster.

 

[Mickey_Finn]

Why do you allow your husband to listen to Rush Limbaugh?

ATB

 

[ishii]

We have had very intelligent, super intelligent men, actually, become Popes. I don’t know of one who actually understood American capitalism. Capitalism in and of itself is neither good or bad. How it is used is what we should judge it by. And capitalism, more than any government ever, has raised people out of poverty.

But before when we had popes from Europe, they either had a resentment of cartoonish view of America, or the context they were raised in - the social democracy/communism- led them to believe that government had a redeeming effect on poverty and that capitalism was merely exploiting the poor. It is telling that our current pope is from Argentina which, among all the latin American countries, is most European in makeup and mores.

Basically, I wish popes would focus on issues of faith and not stray too far into things they have a thin understanding of. The pope, for example, might lump China in the same boat as the US- “unfettered capitalism”. But that is not true. In China, workers aren’t paid what the market demands- workers are paid what the dictatorship wants.

To use the same line for our way of governance, capitalism is a terribly economic system- except for all the others. In fact, capitalism free of draconian government regulation and interference is the single greatest threat to poverty, period.

Or maybe I’m missing the reason why the hopelessly poor risked killing themselves to come here. Maybe now its for the benefits, but it was always for the opportunity.

No worries…we are quickly becoming the social democracy that the intellectuals think we should be. We’ve already got more people earning government assistance than working. Give it time, and maybe the Pope can criticize us on something other than our economy that “deadens” our sympathy for others (which it doesn’t, as the US is the most charitable country on earth).

Like when Cardinal Ratzinger bowed to the “authority” of the United Nations on the question of a just war in Iraq, I am saddened to see another pope get caught up in fashionable and easy hatred of the west.

Well said, Norm640. I worry that the Pope, while orthodox and infallible on faith and morality does not understand the American Capitalist system. I think some of his words (in interviews, etc) have played into left/liberal Catholic (and secular non-Catholic) political agenda. Some have implied that Rush Limbaugh as a protestant “doesn’t get it” etc. But he has every right to question what the Pope is saying on these matters. But rather than Rush Limbaugh, why not consider the words of Pat Buchanan, who is Catholic, on the Pope.

humanevents.com/2013/11/15/papal-neutrality-in-the-culture-war/

From the article:

"*here is further confirmation His Holiness seeks to move the Catholic Church to a stance of non-belligerence, if not neutrality, in the culture war for the soul of the West.

There is a small problem with neutrality. As Trotsky observed, “You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.” For the church to absent itself from the culture war is to not to end that war, but to lose it.*"

“*Who am I to judge,” Pope Francis says of homosexuals.

Well, he is pope. And even the lowliest parish priest has to deliver moral judgments in a confessional.

“ince he became pope,” writes Goodstein, Francis’ “approval numbers are skyrocketing. Even atheists are applauding.”

Especially the atheists, one imagines.

While Pope Francis has not altered any Catholic doctrines in his interviews and disquisitions, he is sowing seeds of confusion among the faithful, a high price to pay, even for “skyrocketing” poll numbers.

If memory serves, the Lord said, “Feed my sheep,” not “get the smell of the sheep.” And he did not mean soup kitchens, but more importantly the spiritual food essential for eternal life.

But then those were different Jesuits. And that was long ago.*

Ishii

 

[ishii]

Why do you allow your husband to listen to Rush Limbaugh?

ATB

You should listen to Rush, Mickey. You might learn something beyond the liberal myths.

Ishii

 

[Mickey_Finn]

You should listen to Rush, Mickey. You might learn something beyond the liberal myths.

Ishii

ishii I’m not a Liberal.

ATB

 

[frattura30]

The Italian version has the phrase “ricaduta favorevole” there, which Google translate says means “relapse favorable.”

I read “trickle-down” and thought that must be a mistake? While there are no perfect economies, people come to the US for opportunity. I think the Pope made a mistake or he was mistranslated. As a matter of fact, with Obama as president, this country’s GDP is an anemic 2.5%. Obama clearly is not a student of trickle-down and look where our country is at. Unemployment with the “poor” is in the double digits. High unemployment leads to high crime. The democrat controlled cities and states that have social programs,are all in fiscal turmoil. Millions of people will loose their doctors and health plans that they like in 2014 because of the new tyranny… communism. So, Im not sure why the Pope or the translator said trickle-down. Clinton should be thanking Reagan if you ask me.

Communism is here in the white house for 3 more years. buckle-up everybody.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I read “trickle-down” and thought that must be a mistake? While there are no perfect economies, people come to the US for opportunity. I think the Pope made a mistake or he was mistranslated. As a matter of fact, with Obama as president, this country’s GDP is an anemic 2.5%. Obama clearly is not a student of trickle-down and look where our country is at. Unemployment with the “poor” is in the double digits. High unemployment leads to high crime. The democrat controlled cities and states that have social programs,are all in fiscal turmoil. Millions of people will loose their doctors and health plans that they like in 2014 because of the new tyranny… communism. So, Im not sure why the Pope or the translator said trickle-down. Clinton should be thanking Reagan if you ask me.

Communism is here in the white house for 3 more years. buckle-up everybody.

Im as opposed to state control as the next guy. But what I think Francis was getting at was greed in free markets. when business stays ethical trickle down would work because employees are seen as people, not assets. When people are fired or usedin poor country tantamount to slave labor, there may not be trickle down. Pope Francis criticized greedy, unethical markets, not free markets per se.

Francis has explicitly opposed communism in the past.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Maybe, maybe not. In any case, let’s be charitable and not condemn him before the fact.

I won’t. I think he’s a genius. El Rushbo knows what the American media will do every before they do.

The guy’s like the Tom Brady and Peyton Manning of American media all rolled into one.

 

[ishii]

ishii I’m not a Liberal.

ATB

Could have fooled me, Mickey.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

Im as opposed to state control as the next guy. But what I think Francis was getting at was greed in free markets. when business stays ethical trickle down would work because employees are seen as people, not assets. When people are fired or usedin poor country tantamount to slave labor, there may not be trickle down. Pope Francis criticized greedy, unethical markets, not free markets per se.

Francis has explicitly opposed communism in the past.

I think one of the problems is that the quotes are so general that they can be interpreted in any number of ways to suit people with an agenda - such as the left, or liberal “dissident” catholics. Perhaps if quotes were made with more specificity then they wouldn’t be able to be distorted or used to further agendas. Or left open to honest criticism from people like Rush Limbaugh.

Ishii

 

[DanielJT]

Since I’ve come back to the Church I’ve come to realize that being Catholic means that you cannot fit into any of the worldly "ism"s. Liberalism does not fit. Conservatism does not fit.

Our current political system has made round pegs and square pegs and demands that you force yourself into one -

But the only true peg is the Cross.

 

[_Abyssinia]

It appears that the transcript of Rush Limbaugh questioning Pope Francis is not on the Rush Limbaugh website now

 

[Rae8]

I won’t. I think he’s a genius. El Rushbo knows what the American media will do every before they do.

The guy’s like the Tom Brady and Peyton Manning of American media all rolled into one.

I think Rush has been slipping for a while now. Sometimes when callers call in with statements, he doesn’t understand their points which seem pretty clear. I’m not and was never impressed with him and his so called “brilliance” - a description he gave himself. He seems a bit dull in fact at times in understanding or digging for deeper meanings, often beating the same old drum.

Martin Levine on the other hand, now he’s impressive.
Not sure what Levine has said about Pope’s latest statements if anything, but Pope Francis is always going to be getting someone’s nose out of joint I suppose.

I think Pope Francis is wonderful and I think Jesus would approve.

 

[DanielJT]

I won’t. I think he’s a genius. El Rushbo knows what the American media will do every before they do.

The guy’s like the Tom Brady and Peyton Manning of American media all rolled into one.

This is because he is a MAJOR player in American media.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Rush isn’t alone. Read this analysis found at Fr. Longenecker’s blog:

patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2013/11/lets-be-frank-about-francis.html

or directly at:

m.nationalreview.com/corner/365004/pope-francis-and-poverty-samuel-gregg

Interesting! This was my initial reaction too.

I have to admit I also get a little uneasy when any Pope after JPII speaks about economic matters, especially given the left-leaning influence of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace.

I also found it irritating and obtuse that the Pope can complain in Sardinia about a lack of jobs in a statist, virtually collectivist economy like Italy where people rioted when the retirement age was pushed up to [gasp!] 62 and not connect the dots.

A few things I’ve observed that seem to help with interpreting his statements.

(1) He’s from a South American country and has never been to the USA.
(a) Many of his economic comments reflect the conditions there. When the Spanish pulled out of South America the wealthiest elites controlled almost all the wealth and the means of production. The poor are truly excluded from any upward mobility through individual initiative. No. 53 clearly relates to South America.
Many of his comments about the clergy are direct attacks on the condition of the Church there. The clergy there are too entangled with those classes.
(b) While not claiming he has drifted off the reservation, his thought is going to be influenced by liberation theology to some extent.

(2) Good old-fashioned rules for interpretation of papal documents help.
(a) When the Francis rejects the idea of unbridled Capitalism “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), we should ask: is that factually the case here? The answer is “No.” OK, then move on.
When, quoting a letter of Paul VI to–guess who–the Pontifical Council for Peace and Justice, he says “the more fortunate should renounce some of their rights so as to place their goods more generously at the service of others” (190), we should ask do the rich here give some of the money and time they have a right to keep to the poor? The answer is “Yes.” OK, then move on.
(b) This is not at the teaching level of a social encyclical. He clearly mentions (184): “This Exhortation is not a social document” and suggests that we read the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church–it rejects collectivism, class warfare and stresses individual and collective initiative, competition, reasonable profit, and regulated capitalism. In the same paragraph Francis explicitly qualifies his remarks: “neither the Pope nor the Church have a monopoly on the interpretation of social realities or the proposal of solutions to contemporary problems.”
(c) He mentions lack of economic “opportunity” (#s 54, 59, 209) as an ill, not lack of free handouts. He also twice rejects the idea of the welfare state/mentality (202, 204). And he cites the teaching of Popularum Progressio that all people should exercise individual initiative as artisans of their own destiny. (190)

So, take the sentence (202) “Inequality is the root of social ills.” In itself it is extremely frightful, sounding like something out of Marx or Vonnegut’s “Harrison Bergeron.” Yet once one realizes that stemming from his South American experience he is talking about inequality of opportunity (not inequality of result) and that in the same paragraph he rejects the idea of the welfare state, the whole thing looks a little different.

When Francis talks about the importance of jobs for the needy I assume fingers crossed] he means real jobs based on real competence in a real economy that has a real track record of generating wealth, not the rich giving the poor a shovel and paying them by the hour to dig a ditch and then go back and fill it up again.

He says (208): “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.” What exactly does this mean? I believe in hope that he means he is speaking to those he may have offended with affection and the best intentions and NOT from any personal interest or political ideology.

 

[CaptFun]

The Italian version has the phrase “ricaduta favorevole” there, which Google translate says means “relapse favorable.”

My Italian translator comes close: It says “fallen back favorable!” … which may refer back to the English (political epithet) “trickle down economics” in a way, but interpreted that way seems to be a shot at conservatives and proponents of Capitalism in general as it referred to the policies of David Stockman in the early days of the Reagan Administration.

John Kennedy was quoted once as saying “a rising tide floats all boats …” being the seaman he was. His topic was the tax cuts he was initiating in hopes of fueling a more robust economy … which the cuts did actually.

The more severe translation anomaly IMO was that which changed the Pope’s apparent caution not to put too much faith in economics of any kind, especially to absolve oneself from responsibility to help the poor and needy when you can personally. The qualifying language seemingly found in the other translations seems to be changed for a more definitive “condemnation” against capitalism when rendered in English for some reason.

nationalreview.com/corner/365242/was-popes-criticism-trickle-down-economics-mistranslated-patrick-brennan

The French versions, regardless, seem to match up with the Spanish interpretation: In French, we have “en soi,” and in Italian, “per sé” (the cognate of the Latin “per se,” “through/by itself”). It’s hard to say which translation should be most authoritative, and there isn’t a Latin translation yet. While a Latin version may be forthcoming, Pope Benedict’s last two apostolic exhortations weren’t released in Latin.

But given three other translations, it seems that something is indeed awry with the “inevitably” interpretation. And Father Zuhlsdorf, and Pope Francis, are of course correct that free markets — or “trickle-down economics” — by themselves are obviously not sufficient for a just and inclusive society. This seems like a relatively uncontroversial proposition. In fact, it’s not a condemnation of free-market economics so much as it is a recognition of the limits of economics per se.

Some have taken issue with the pope’s use of an apparently pejorative term “trickle down,” but by the apparently clearer translation, the views of diehard evangelists of the free market aren’t really being caricatured. It would be good if the pope would also chide those who put too much faith in the ability of command-and-control economics to build a just society, too, of course, but the context here is important.

My interior translation AFTER having read Evangelii Gaudium?

The Pope is cautioning people not to wash their hands of a personal responsibility toward our poorer brothers and sisters who need us by deferring to a political or economic programme or policy to do our work for us. I still think, yes, in English the “trickle-down” adjective is a perjorative toward conservatives (implying that to my ear, the “rich” get the lion’s share of the water and the poor gets what ever else trickles down to them - as the phrase was designed). The Washington Post made this little turn of phrasing into a headline … as if Pope Francis were crusading against Capitalism “per se” and not the moral abdication of the poor so much. Thereby making Evangelii Gaudium SEEM like a political document aimed at those of a certain political stripe – instead of the call to holiness it really is.

If it is merely coincidental that the Pope’s words were translated in a manner making it indistinguishable from the most partisan political way one could interpret section c54 -
it is a coincidence that is magnified by a lack of counsel to those who likewise defer their duties to the poor in favor of non-capitalist political programs that are also “unproven” to “inevitably” solve the problem of poverty. I understand the Pope’s words, poor interpretations notwithstanding, to call folks of that political and economic school to the service of the poor as well.

vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium_en.html < THE DOCUMENT (as translated into English).

 

[Stilldreamn]

Since I’ve come back to the Church I’ve come to realize that being Catholic means that you cannot fit into any of the worldly "ism"s. Liberalism does not fit. Conservatism does not fit.

Our current political system has made round pegs and square pegs and demands that you force yourself into one -

But the only true peg is the Cross.

I hear you! Local elections are fairly easy to decide who gets my vote. Some state elections, also. But nationally…I feel like I’m attempting to select the lesser of two evils. The candidates seem like avatars - who knows who is really pulling their strings?

 

[CaptFun]

On a lighter note, this graphic made me laugh. That’s Donald Sutherland from the climax of the remake of “Invasion of the Bodysnatchers!” co-opted into an editorial cartoon type presentation so broad that one could imagine it to support their position on whether the mainstream media is biased or not! ). The post gets more serious from here.

:coffeeread:

kpeople: Join Us in Fighting the Secular Media Bias!
The mainstream media continues to relentlessly distort the Church’s teaching and the Pope’s words.
The secular media eagerly reports that Pope Francis is softerning - sometimes going as far as completely changing - Church doctrine. Deceptive headlines, quotes taken out of context, and uninformed journalists have become the norm when mainstream media reports on the Catholic Church today

The Church needs more support than ever, and it’s important that we as Catholics remain informed.

– subscription ad on page C-5 of the November 17, 2013 issue of the National Catholic Register

***I could not find this ad on the online version … I copied it verbatim from my hard copy (newspaper). *** Though it precedes the Evangelii Gaudatim controversy and Rush Limbaugh’s wondering about a dubious English translation – the NCR’s words jumped out at me - as I deduced the Washington Post exploited a few of the words referencing economic matters (NOT the central thrust of Evangelii Gaudatim at all!) in the English version and making him look more like a throwback to some of the dyspeptic clerical “Liberation Theology” proponents of the 1980s than a pastor calling his flock to a greater personal responsibility to the poor (IMO).

The Washington Post headline (also enshrined here in CAF Forum’s Index of Catholic News topics - to my chagrin) ***“Pope Francis denounces ‘trickle-down’ economic theories in critique of inequality” *** - is JUST the type of thing the NCRegister ad deplores.

Limbaugh’s confusion came from the fact that (unusual for him) he was quoting Pope Francis as run through the broad paraphrasing and running analysis of a Washington Post reporter. This “denouncement” by the Pope struck me upon reading it as rather a caution, and not a caution against the adaptation of an economic view so much as considering the holding of such a view all one would need to do to fulfill one’s duties toward Lazarus at the gate (personally helping the poor in our immediate sphere).

A rather liberally convenient English translation of one section of Pope Francis’ document inserts the politically charged term “trickle-down,” as well as opting for the stronger terms “justice” for “equity” and “inevitably” for the more general, less extreme terms “by itself” in his counsel against abdicating one’s personal responsibility to the poor in favor of letting Capitalism (or anything else IMO of what the pontiff was saying) handle the problem in our stead.

A key error in translation of Evangelii Gaudium

catholicculture.org/commentary/the-city-gates.cfm?id=697

Evangelii gaudium 54 (“trickle-down economics”). Significant translation error changed meaning.

wdtprs.com/blog/2013/11/evangelii-gaudium-54-trickle-down-economics-significant-translation-error-changed-meaning/

 

[Modern_Revert]

He seriously just called the Pope a Marxist.
catholicozarks.blogspot.com/2013/12/rush-limbaugh-verses-pope-francis.html

 

[Origen52]

The Italian version has the phrase “ricaduta favorevole” there, which Google translate says means “relapse favorable.”

Ricaduta favorevole is the italian term for trickle down. Let’s argue if we want, but let’s give the Vatican translators some respect. Nothing would be posted on the web site without being carefully proof read.