Rush Limbaugh going off on Pope Francis's exhortation

[cecilia97]

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

Rush is doubling down on his statement right now on his show. He is saying that he read from a Reuters translation of sections of the document which made it appear the Pope was talking about “unfettered capitalism.” The Pope was really writing about consumerism.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Rush Limbaugh Doesn’t Get Pope Francis

 

[Origen52]

In you opinion. All we know for sure is he said “ricaduta favorevole” which is translated according to ones political views evidently. I still find it beyond belief that the pope would use such a loaded American political term in an exhortation the world.

And I’m telling you as a native speaker that “ricaduta favorevole” is the italian term for trickle down. The Vatican translators are saying the same thing google it if you don’t trust anyone. It’s not my opinion.

 

[ishii]

I think that the ‘Marxist/socialist’ influence of the Church is really an illusion on your part. The Jesuits, and the rest of the Catholic church, hold on to humanitarian values. They are humanitarian, not Marxist/socialist.

I assure you it wasn’t an illusion: I have been around Jesuits my whole life - and the college I attended was a Jesuit university that still had quite a few Jesuits teaching. For the most part, the older generation of Jesuits were solidly orthodox and very scholarly. They tended to teach the philosophy, ethics, moral theology, religious studies, history, psychology - the social sciences. I don’t think they really knew much about economics or say, the effect of the capital gains tax for instance, on the economy. The younger Jesuits were different - more radical politically and spoke the language of leftism, railing against the “3 evils of society: racism, classism and sexism.” (one assumes that now homophobia is the 4th “evil”). This was during the Sandinista rule of Nicaragua - and there were always leftist Jesuit priests from Central America being invited to discuss the wonders of Liberation Theology by the American leftist Jesuits. I remember it well, Robert. It was no illusion.

Regarding Pope Francis, t is not hard to imagine that his perspective would be shaped by having lived in South America and lived under the type of Capitalism practiced there - where the free market is not able to exist within the rule of law as it does here, and where the cycle of corruption, revolution, leftist governments and right-wing military coups seem to be the norm. If that was my main impression of “capitalism” then I would have a negative view of it as well.

Interesting to note that the previous two Popes grew up in very different environments than Pope Francis - they lived under totalitarianism and witnessed it first hand - Pope Benedict under Nazi Germany, and JP2 under Soviet style communism.

Ishii

 

[jerome_ky]

The Church has been under attack from the “Left” for some time. Now she is under attack from the “Right.” It is harder and harder to be a believing Catholic. For this, fellow Catholics, we should rejoice! Counter-intuitive, yes. Catholic, yes.

 

[ishii]

  I apologize if my brusque comments on Mr. Limbaugh, ruffled feathers of those who admire him, but I have no high opinion of him one way or the other and if Catholics on here who follow him are offended by my criticism of him, oh well.

I don’t see the point of putting some guy behind a microphone on a pedestal, that I have seen some do. He’s conceited anyway, what with his “talent on loan from God” stuff.

Don’t get me wrong - I have no illusions about Limbaugh’s understanding of Church teachings, and he wouldn’t be the first person whose opinion I’d seek for a response to a Papal speech or exhortation. I was mainly responding to your calling Rush a “big mouthed ignorant entertainer” whose large audience apparently scares you. Such ad hominem attacks cheapen your other points - you seem like you have an axe to grind. You complain about Rush’s “backhanded slap” at the Church, but then proceed with your own barrage of backhanded slaps toward Limbaugh. This calls into question your objectivity.

But enough about the man. He’s free to be as controversial as he likes in the public eye , as he has money to make and he has 400 million dollars to show for it.

Back handed slap.

I have a problem with what he stated this week, and only this week. I just take offense to him and the whole of this topical narrative from the Right, criticizing IL PAPA’s brief paragraph, when none of Rush and those others’ criticism is warranted. Pope Francis said, *“Unfettered capitalism” “How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses 2 points?” " *

I disagree that none of the criticism is warranted. That might be your opinion but in fact, the language that the Pope uses - such as loaded phrases with partisan left/right connotations like “trickle down”, etc. are unfortunate and stir up all kinds of controversy that detract from what the Pope’s message is. The phrase “trickle down” was a derogatory phrase used by the left to discredit what conservatives have always believed to be the beneficial effects of lower taxation: it tends to spur economic activity, growth and “viola” - jobs are created which benefits everyone. A better phrase would be “a rising tide lifts all boats.” And its true, and acknowleging that fact does not make one a sweat shop owner who would prefer that the homeless die out in the street.

How is that Marxist? It is not. So it’s not a question if he has a right. It’s whether he exercised that right with good judgment and is open to being called out? Likewise, his comments were deceptively backhanded and just as insulting as Bill Maher speaking about Catholic things.
Rush took offense, because he fears that the wool will be pulled from the eyes of his listeners that certain practices of Capitalism, and even Adam Smith, ain’t all that it cracked up to be, and the same tired arguments that his PARTY backers push on voters, will ring hollow because of its incomplete simplistic vagueness about “free markets” and " bootstraps" .

The worst thing that scared Rush and those he works for was the Pope’s statement that trickle down economics are not based on fact. That’s what rankled him and those who pay for this part of the media. That’s what rankled the rich associates Rush deals with every now and then.
Capitalism is an idol to some, and Rush exposes that it is for many who identify as Conservatives and Republicans.

Veridical, your post above is so filled with simplistic half-truths of your own (“capitalism is an idol”) that it really constitutes a rant. The Pope is infallible on matters of faith and morals. He is not necessarily infallible on the words and language he chooses and certainly not when making pronouncements on the economy. Perhaps you could better understand what’s going on if you stepped out of rant mode and paused to look at the context in which this criticism of the Pope is happening. Just like it is important to look at the environment in which the Pope grew up in South America - an environment that was not a good example of the wonders of free market economics - similarly, we should look at the context here in America: We have been living for 6 years now under a secular leftist regime that has been at war with the church - such as with the HHS mandate, etc. and at war with the values that helped shape our country - hard work, personal responsibility, the “free market” etc. And the language - such as “trickle down” has been used by the left to unfairly caricature what is quite a provable fact: that if you penalize the private sector less, and reduce taxes in general, you will get economic growth that results in more jobs and opportunity. At least in America that is the result. The left manipulates langauge all the time to push its agenda. When this kind of language is used by the Pope, it is not hard at all to understand why some conservatives in America would question this.

Ishii

 

[ProVobis]

In you opinion. All we know for sure is he said “ricaduta favorevole” which is translated according to ones political views evidently. I still find it beyond belief that the pope would use such a loaded American political term in an exhortation the world.

Maybe he should have stated it in Latin. Wouldn’t have sounded so confrontational and biased toward the Italians, who are currently experiencing an economic crisis of their own. That’s my opinion.

 

[ishii]

Where did my post equate capitalism with marxism? Marx & Engles political thought (along with others in the 1800’s ) was a godless response to the injustices of unfettered Capitalism of the Industrial Revolution. Buckley made the mistake in dismissing the Popes too, but he was Catholic, so it was more regrettable for him to do so.

It was this sentence when you seemed to be equating Capitalism with Marxism:

“Capitalism… has its own evil elements in its own right which only creates more elusive injustices in Republics – especially when comprised of an immoral & godless body politic.”

i.e. - “capitalism is merely another bad system that is inherently evil just like Marxism.” Or am I misunderstanding you?

That presumes that Capitalism as a system is inherently neutral, because Socialism is not. No system is neutral. One is more corrosively abusive than the other.

One denies human nature, the other does not. But yes, there can be bad capitalists. If that’s your point, I agree.

The free market system is not necessarily corrosively abusive. In fact, in America it has contributed to a very high standard of living. The wealth created by the system has improved people’s way of life - resulted in modern conveniences, etc. that I think we take for granted. If you had travelled from East Berlin to West Berlin, you would have gotten an idea of the difference between the two systems. I think the biggest difference between a capitalistic system and a Marxist socialist system is that in general, political freedoms are more prevalent in a capitalistic system, whereas political freedoms are more likely to be abused or curtailed in socialist systems - including freedom of religion.

And because Christ’s Kingdom is not of this world, all forms and systems are going to be wanting or corruptible. See the Freemasonic notion of Church and State embedded in our Republic: what Pope Pius X called a most pernicious error ]

You lost me, Veridical. Are you saying that non-establishment of a state religion in America is a “pernicious error”? Perhaps you’re one of those "extra ecclisiam nulla salus types? No thanks, I think that the Catholic church recognized religious liberty decades ago.

Unfortunately because the ills of 20th Century’s implementation of Leftist socio-political solutions to “Capitalism” has wrought greater evils, we get lulled into thinking that “Free Markets” “Economic Liberty” are terms that should ignite hope, neglecting to realize that certain powers with vast wealth who encourage these buzzwords every four years, have no interest in encouraging the values of alleviating or stopping the injustices that do oppress the poor, that they do benefit only the very wealthy who own public office holders – that do punish the lower middle class and do close doors and ladders of opportunity to people under the guise of curing the lurch to the Left or Right every four years.

Now you’ve gone beyond an objective critique of capitalism as a system, and instead are attacking motives of those who believe in the benefits of the free market. You sound bitter and cynical.

I hope that this recent political uproar over this new pontificate will wake up many American Catholics about building their house on the sand of both political parties and ideologies as they currently stand.
One’s political preferences on how government should run exactly and how economies should work, should not de-evolve into a pseudo-religion, as Americanism has developed in much of the minds of its Citizenry. This is why the Political Parties have caused such division amongst Catholics even in this board and amongst the Prelates themselves since the 1930’s and why to this day one can find Catholics on both conservative and liberal messageboards; failing to realize they have both been misled on certain things, when hitching their wagons where they should not be hitched.

I disagree with the left/right moral equivalency argument you’re making. I seriously don’t think that conservative values - believing that we should have fiscal sanity, respect for life, the institution of marriage and yes, the free-market, that is somehow the opposite side of the coin of leftism - equally dangerous and a “pseudo-religion” to be ridiculed from a moral high horse stance.

For instance, not once have I heard about “JUST WAGES” or the content of the dignity of the Worker in Rerum Novarum brought up whenever Capitalism is discussed , and like I said William Buckley Jr. and National Review and Austrian School of Economics , have all contributed to this false dilemma that because the Church condemns Marxist Philosophy, All Capitalistic Rhetoric is always therefore good.

Silly strawman, Veridical. No one here says all capitalist rhetoric is always good. If you haven’t heard a converstion about just wages then perhaps you’re not reading the right publications. What you can read in NR is a response to the attacks on the good aspects of the free market system that have been happening since that 1st issue stood “athwart history yelling stop.” I don’t think you’ll find an article in National Review promoting the virtues of sweatshops and children coal miners.

Ishii

 

[ProVobis]

I don’t know of one who actually understood American capitalism.

Ever since I read Ayn Rand, I’ve often seen this phrase as oxymoronic. True capitalism would have no bounds. It must be worldwide or non-existent. Since Americans trade with socialists, dictators, communists, etc. with stock market exchanges, I guess Americans can’t be the isolationists many in the U.S. would like them to be.

 

[Abu]

Reference has been made to Pope Francis and Poverty by Samuel Gregg November 26, 2013 8:08 PM, at m.nationalreview.com/corner/365004/pope-francis-and-poverty-samuel-gregg

There is praise of Pope Francis here, but very important problems arise which cannot just be glossed over. I quote on the serious problems identified in this Apostolic Exhortation:

1. ‘To be very frank (which Francis himself is always encouraging us to be), a number of claims made by this document and some of the assumptions underlying those statements are rather questionable.

‘…the pope’s remark that “authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence” (253). As one of the most authoritative Catholic commentators on Islam, Pope Francis’s fellow Jesuit Samir Khalil Samir (who is no knee-jerk anti-Muslim), writes in his *111 Questions on Islam *(2002), Westerners who assert that groups like the Taliban are acting in a manner contrary to the spirit of Islam “usually know little about Islam.”

1. ‘My purpose, however, is to focus upon some of the many economic reflections that loom large throughout Evangelii Gaudium and which are, I’m afraid, very hard to defend. In some cases, they reflect the straw-man arguments about the economy that one encounters far too often in some Catholic circles, especially in Western Europe but also in Latin America.

‘Prominent among these is the pope’s condemnation of the “absolute autonomy of markets” (202). If, however, we follow Evangelii Gaudium’s injunction (231–233) to look at the realities of the world today, we will soon discover that there is literally no country in which markets operate with “absolute autonomy.”

1. ‘Another claim made by Evangelii Gaudium that warrants scrutiny is that certain ideologies “reject the right of states, charged with vigilance for the common good, to exercise any form of control” over the economy (56). But outside the minuscule world of anarcho-capitalists (who exert zero influence upon public policy), this simply isn’t the position of those who favor free markets today (let alone past advocates like Adam Smith).

‘…we find Francis critiquing those who “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.”

‘There are several problems with this line of reasoning. First, opening up markets throughout the world has helped to reduce poverty in many developing nations. East Asia is a living testimony to that reality — a testimony routinely ignored by many Catholics in Western Europe (who tend to complain rather self-centeredly about the competition it creates for protected Western European businesses and other recipients of corporate welfare) and a reality about which I have found many Latin American Catholics simply have nothing to say.

‘Second, it has never been the argument of most of those who favor markets that economic freedom and free exchange are somehow sufficient to reduce poverty.

1. ‘It hardly need be said that rule of law (mentioned not once in Evangelii Gaudium) is, to put it mildly, a “challenge” in most developing nations. The lack of rule of law not only ranks among the biggest obstacles to their ability to generate wealth on a sustainable basis, but also hampers their capacity to address economic issues in a just manner. Instead, what one finds is crony capitalism, rampant protectionism, and the corruption that has become a way of life in much of Africa and Latin America.
2. ‘Francis adds that some people today find any mention of the distribution of income to be “irksome” (203).
   'I don’t find discussions of wealth distribution to be bothersome at all. Catholics, other Christians, and other people of good will should, in my view, enter enthusiastically into such debates. Because it is precisely through these conversations that it can be pointed out that — as Evangelii Gaudium seems, alas, unaware — many poverty-alleviation methods that involve redistribution (such as foreign aid) are increasingly discredited. As the economist and historian of the Federal Reserve Allan Meltzer put it, one of the 20th century’s economic lessons is that “transfers, grants and redistribution did little to raise living standards in Asia, Latin America and Africa.” In other words, the standard wealth-redistribution policies that are often regarded as indispensable to poverty alleviation have failed to achieve their goals. Hence it behooves all Catholics to ask ourselves why such approaches have failed if we’re going to have a serious conversation about wealth and poverty in the modern world.’
3. ‘And attention to particular realities about economic life is precisely what’s missing from parts of Evangelii Gaudium’s analysis of wealth and poverty. If we want “the dignity of each human person and the pursuit of the common good” to be more than what the pope calls a “mere addendum” to the pursuit of “true and integral development” (203), then engaging more seriously the economic part of the truth that sets us free would be a good start.’

The precision and depth that Bl John Paul II and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI have displayed routinely, needs to be emulated.

 

[Veridical16]

I was mainly responding to your calling Rush a “big mouthed ignorant entertainer” whose large audience apparently scares you. Such ad hominem attacks cheapen your other points - you seem like you have an axe to grind. . . This calls into question your objectivity.

It’s funny that you defend the argument of the very man, who may be more guilty of what you accused me of earlier. Therefore, his criticisms need to be questioned even more. And his criticisms have been similar to yours.

• I* called Rush ignorant because he displayed ignorance. Remove the “big mouth entertainer” and we don’t have a problem.
  He labeled the Pope essentially a Marxist, and implied he was insincere in his public gestures when it wasn’t ‘marxist’ , and can’t possibly know if what the Pope does is mainly PR. He also insinuated the Catholic Church as hypocritically benefiting from Capitalism because of 'shiny gold art ’ . An insult usually hurled by lefties who always demand the church sell all its art.

You complain about Rush’s “backhanded slap” at the Church, but then proceed with your own barrage of backhanded slaps toward Limbaugh.

I wouldn’t call them backhanded slaps. I would call them forward handed. I never started off my post saying,* "now I respect Rush but " “even tempted to listen to him more”* I never said that. I have been saying, I have no high opinion of him therefore he has a big mouth. Maybe I’m too objective!

The Large audience being “scary” was a flippant remark I’ll admit and is one of the pratfalls of the internet where one thinks and speaks at the same time.
I am biased, but only because I think it’s absurd for instance that the OP, stated a Catholic husband was at a conflict of interest in perceiving his Holy Father, because of some radio guys’ commentary about the Pope.

That is the Cult of Personality in practice.

Here is what you said earlier:

Rush has every right to question what the Pope is saying your ad homines notwithstanding. Quite telling that you make no attempt to address the substance of what Rush was saying. You seem to have a tidy little world view that allows you to unfairly attack those with whom you disagree.

I had a tidy little world view because I had the gall to see that Rush was wrongly offended by Pope Francis because he views everything from his intellectual custom of american ’ conservatism ', you projected what Rush was guilty of when he attacked the Pope onto me. And then you proceed to call into question Pope Francis because he’s from Argentina, failing to realize that this is the Holy Father, he is no longer Bergoglio, and the Exhortation was more of an exercise of his office, than his person conducting an interview with an atheist or speaking extemporaneously on a plane.

I also have heard a priest say that we can’t reduce the Holy Father as if he is there to be taken out every century to make a papal infallible statement only to ignore him 98 percent of the time for the rest of our lives. That is a flawed view of his office as supreme pontiff and pastoral teacher. Even if one does not agree with certain things like political mistakes in relations with other sovereigns or prudential errors, he is the holy father and requires filial respect. We can’t just see him as "just that old man in Rome he doesn’t know anything about War in the real world, or Economics! " Instead Catholics are justifying *that *criticism he is getting from the Right. I think it’s wrong, and it calls into question those taking a side of argument against him, with those who have no right to be so disrespectful to him in many articles on Fox News, and Forbes etc, and not get mad about it.

I believe you are questioning my posts credence, just because it doesn’t fit with one’s conservative view point…
I am acting as a Catholic who is defending the Pope and I would not want to take sides with those who are obviously buying ink by the barrel full this week, to prevent the ‘masses’ from listening to the Pope’s actual legitimate comments.

wdtprs.com/blog/2013/12/fox-news-opinion-piece-blasts-pope-francis-as-the-catholic-churchs-obama/

You are the one rationalizing out of fear that the Pope has damaged a “free market message”

I do not think it is good practice to blow him off, as that Stuart Varney gentleman did, whenever he as a TEACHER becomes politically inconvenient to one’s complacency in following an ideology.

freakoutnation.com/2013/11/27/fox-business-host-stuart-varney-weighs-in-on-the-pope-suddenly-hates-religion-mixed-with-politics/

 

[Veridical16]

I disagree that none of the criticism is warranted. That might be your opinion but in fact, the language that the Pope uses - such as loaded phrases with partisan left/right connotations like “trickle down”, etc. are unfortunate and stir up all kinds of controversy that detract from what the Pope’s message is. The phrase “trickle down” was a derogatory phrase used by the left to discredit what conservatives have always believed to be the beneficial effects of lower taxation: it tends to spur economic activity, growth and “viola” - jobs are created which benefits everyone. A better phrase would be “a rising tide lifts all boats.” And its true, and acknowleging that fact does not make one a sweat shop owner who would prefer that the homeless die out in the street.

We are told that; Larry Kudlow mentioned it on his show for instance, but I am a skeptic when I am told that the way our system is practiced now,

Veridical, your post above is so filled with simplistic half-truths of your own (“capitalism is an idol”) that it really constitutes a rant. Just like it is important to look at the environment in which the Pope grew up in South America - an environment that was not a good example of the wonders of free market economics - similarly, we should look at the context here in America: We have been living for 6 years now under a secular leftist regime that has been at war with the church - such as with the HHS mandate, etc. and at war with the values that helped shape our country - hard work, personal responsibility, the “free market” etc. And the language - such as “trickle down” has been used by the left to unfairly caricature what is quite a provable fact: that if you penalize the private sector less, and reduce taxes in general. . . At least in America that is the result. The left manipulates langauge all the time to push its agenda. When this kind of language is used by the Pope, it is not hard at all to understand why some conservatives in America would question this.

Ishii

And why should the Right be afraid of “loaded” terms, they should know the drill, just as the president will always have a motive as he did when he invoked the Holy Father yesterday, knowing full well the Catholic Church is an adversary to him.
If they are fully convinced that they have the reasonable argument on their side they wouldn’t be freaking out and brazenly attacking the only man on Earth who has no equal office But they do it. This is why they are doing the same media manipulation of Catholic laity, when they suppressed the previous Pontiffs comments on the Iraq War.

Again, you seem to feel strongly about the conservative paradigm you uphold, but you don’t have to belittle my comments as if what I said, was a “half-truth” because perhaps I have been posting inexplicitly where if I had more time, I would cite examples and certain things that are not always espoused in the National Reviews and Forbes Magazines, but it’d cover too many topics down a rabbit hole.

Hellaire Belloc has written for instance , “The Servile State”.

Also there are many assumptions in your post that exposes the priorities of the conservative message, “oh if we could just shrink government, and let the businesses alone and operate, then there would be prosperity. This is what we need to strive for in our elections every two years” That is a hollow thing to hope for…and has nothing to do with what Christians should hope and pray for…

But " capitalism an idol" does not reduce what I have said earlier as a rant, no more than the Holy Father talking about it as an idol.

One religious priest, has stated for instance that ‘affluence’ is a sign of God’s punishment…John Paul II later in his life lamented, during the fall of Communism, how the Western values being opened up into the Markets into Poland encouraged pornography and sex shops.

Think about this the conservative message has been that “a sign that a nation is blessed BY its GDP” -- so it is no wonder why I am insulated from being so offended with the terms the Holy Father used.
While he has had a rocky start in the press, this was an exhortation, not an interview.

Anyway, I would like to engage more but I hope this disagreement or ‘argument’ is not taken wrongly by you as we are not on the same page on this specific topic.
You hear, the great wonders of Capitalism, how the West has been the great liberator of cultures, I don’t believe them anymore.

What good is it for a nation to be rich and well taken care of through ‘Trickle Down’ economics? If most of the people in that nation are killing themselves spiritually with the excesses?

That’s why the conservative punditry sell a half-truth. That’s why Rush doesn’t understand the Pope and thinks he “attacks America” in his statements yesterday.

 

[Veridical16]

Reference has been made to Pope Francis and Poverty by Samuel Gregg November 26, 2013 8:08 PM, at m.nationalreview.com/corner/365004/pope-francis-and-poverty-samuel-gregg

There is praise of Pope Francis here, but very important problems arise which cannot just be glossed over. I quote on the serious problems identified in this Apostolic Exhortation:

1. ‘To be very frank (which Francis himself is always encouraging us to be), a number of claims made by this document and some of the assumptions underlying those statements are rather questionable.

‘…the pope’s remark that “authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence” (253). As one of the most authoritative Catholic commentators on Islam, Pope Francis’s fellow Jesuit Samir Khalil Samir (who is no knee-jerk anti-Muslim), writes in his *111 Questions on Islam *(2002), Westerners who assert that groups like the Taliban are acting in a manner contrary to the spirit of Islam “usually know little about Islam.”

This is why it’s an exhortation, and not an encyclical, let alone an infallible one.

But the Pastoral intent is there. We need to look at the Muslim persons.
It is a clumsy statement, and it is also something of a self-limiting erroneous statement, since Islam is an early Christological Heresy, and its founder a fraud…One can have no more a proper reading of “Authentic Islam” , than one can have a proper reading of Arianism, Manicheasm or given today’s recycled heresies, authentically trying to read into the errors of Jehovas Witness Watchtower, or Mormonism…

Authentic Islam is an oxymoron, because how can one have Authentic Errors??? Especially of a False Religion that has been split into two warring factions very early on its inception, and where Illiterate Uneducated Mohammad himself abrogated his earlier teachings WITHIN the koran, so it can’t be properly read by its followers, because there is no authority there to properly read it… and we know the word Islam itself has always displayed a “false peace” through a sword. Peaceful Muslims are those who use the law written in their hearts to ignore the bad parts.
So its a statement that most Catholics with rudimentary knowledge of Islam will understand is a mistake. But for the sake of those Catholics who are ignorant , I pray that that erroneous statement will be repudiated and corrected later by the grace of God;
Rather it would be a desire for the Muslim peoples to seek AUTHENTIC PEACE not “Islam” , which can only come from the TRUE God himself, whose truths are obscured and corrupted if present at all in the koran ; instead it seems it was an attempt to reach out to those in the Muslim Countries in the whole paragraph, with the last sentence bordering on the form of appeasement.

This has happened before when the American Bishops have had to correct themselves in saying the Mosaic covenant still stood.

The total paragraph:

*In order to sustain dialogue with Islam, suitable training is essential for all involved, not only so that they can be solidly and joyfully grounded in their own identity, but so that they can also acknowledge the values of others, appreciate the concerns underlying their demands and shed light on shared beliefs. We Christians should embrace with affection and respect Muslim immigrants to our countries in the same way that we hope and ask to be received and respected in countries of Islamic tradition. I ask and I humbly entreat those countries to grant Christians freedom to worship and to practice their faith, in light of the freedom which followers of Islam enjoy in Western countries! Faced with disconcerting episodes of violent fundamentalism, our respect for true followers of Islam should lead us to avoid hateful generalisations. *

Again, it is a politically correct influenced statement with a sense of speaking to Muslim countries.

Nevertheless, the time of “Fear of Islam” should be put to rest already, for the sake the peoples under the false religion. And I understand that the Pope and his bishops have displayed the earnest attempts to reach out and dialogue on to Pastorally address these errors in the present day. So the Pope attempting to reach out to them is not a bad thing.

 

[ProVobis]

And why should the Right be afraid of “loaded” terms, they should know the drill, just as the president will always have a motive as he did when he invoked the Holy Father yesterday, knowing full well the Catholic Church is an adversary to him.

Then we ask ourselves: what if the Holy Father makes him a Catholic tomorrow? Are all Catholics prepared to handle that?

Just saying.

 

[estesbob]

Then we ask ourselves: what if the Holy Father makes him a Catholic tomorrow? Are all Catholics prepared to handle that?

Just saying.

The Holy Father had no power to make Obama Catholic.Obama could do it himself but would require him to change his core moral beliefs. Let us all pray for this to happen.

 

[ProVobis]

The Holy Father had no power to make Obama Catholic.Obama could do it himself but would require him to change his core moral beliefs. Let us all pray for this to happen.

Did Blair change his moral beliefs?

 

[estesbob]

Did Blair change his moral beliefs?

We’d have to ask his confessor-who of course couldn’t tell us. But most catholic recognize that support of unrestricted tax payer funded abortion on demand, homosexual marriage and state mandated contraception coverage by Catholic employers are not compatible with Catholicism. I am sure Obama would feel comfortable among the “progressive” Catholics who put politics before faith and believe we can fulfill Francis’s exhortation to help the poor by voting for someone who promises to take other peoples money and do it for them

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Hi Abu,

The economic parts of this Exhortation sure got me going 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 complete agree that Francis often lacks the nuance and attention to coherence in what he says compared to JPII and Benedict XVI.

I also found it irritating and obtuse that the Francis 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 regarding job creation.

However, there are some considerations (I’ve mentioned elsewhere) that suggest he hasn’t wanderd off the reservation regarding the tradition of catholic social teaching.

(1) He’s an evangelist, not a philosopher or theologian.

(2) 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 the opportunity for upward mobility through individual initiative. No. 53 clearly relates to South America IMO.

(b) While not claiming he has drifted off the reservation, his thought is going to be influenced by the climate of liberation theology to some extent.

(3) 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 dependency on government entitlements, and stresses individual and collective initiative, private ownership of property and the means of production, entrepreneurial ability, education, competition, legitimacy of 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 three times, 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 outcome) and that in the same paragraph he rejects the idea of the welfare state, the whole thing looks a little different.

But I’m still keeping my fingers crossed.

 

[Veridical16]

Then we ask ourselves: what if the Holy Father makes him a Catholic tomorrow? Are all Catholics prepared to handle that?

Just saying.

Just saying, what?
Why wouldn’t all Catholics be prepared for any adversary becoming a Catholic. (see: St. Paul) If it was a political conversion Obama would be received as just another Newt Gingrich, Blair or phony Kennedy.

The tell that it would be a sincere conversion, is he’d become the most hated man in America

. . . all over again (but it’d for the sake of God instead of the Devil this time)

And as este said, Obama can’t be " made " a Catholic by the Pope. Our Lady could do it however.

 

[ishii]

It’s funny that you defend the argument of the very man, who may be more guilty of what you accused me of earlier. Therefore, his criticisms need to be questioned even more. And his criticisms have been similar to yours.

Veridical, my criticisms (if you can call them that) have been for example, that the use of a phrase like “trickle down” - which was basically used by the left in America to unfairly malign and caricature the free market economic system in America was a poor choice of words. When the only ones using that phrase were lefty statists then its no wonder that the Pope’s use of the phrase would raise eyebrows.

I had a tidy little world view because I had the gall to see that Rush was wrongly offended by Pope Francis because he views everything from his intellectual custom of american ’ conservatism ', you projected what Rush was guilty of when he attacked the Pope onto me. And then you proceed to call into question Pope Francis because he’s from Argentina, failing to realize that this is the Holy Father, he is no longer Bergoglio, and the Exhortation was more of an exercise of his office, than his person conducting an interview with an atheist or speaking extemporaneously on a plane.

(my bold italics) Veridical, I am merely questioning the Pope’s choice of words, and also bringing up the point that some of the things he says might be influenced by his background. I also mentioned that his predecessors were influenced by their experiences and backgrounds. I think its a valid point to make - and its not necessarily a criticism. You don’t think that Pope JP 2’s experiences living under Nazi and then communist Poland helped shape him as a human being and partly influenced the kind of Pope he became? Are you saying that once a man becomes Pope all the formative experiences fall by the wayside?

I also have heard a priest say that we can’t reduce the Holy Father as if he is there to be taken out every century to make a papal infallible statement only to ignore him 98 percent of the time for the rest of our lives. That is a flawed view of his office as supreme pontiff and pastoral teacher. Even if one does not agree with certain things like political mistakes in relations with other sovereigns or prudential errors, he is the holy father and requires filial respect. We can’t just see him as "just that old man in Rome he doesn’t know anything about War in the real world, or Economics! " Instead Catholics are justifying *that *criticism he is getting from the Right. I think it’s wrong, and it calls into question those taking a side of argument against him, with those who have no right to be so disrespectful to him in many articles on Fox News, and Forbes etc, and not get mad about it.

I believe you are questioning my posts credence, just because it doesn’t fit with one’s conservative view point…
I am acting as a Catholic who is defending the Pope and I would not want to take sides with those who are obviously buying ink by the barrel full this week, to prevent the ‘masses’ from listening to the Pope’s actual legitimate comments.

No, you’re wrong, Veridical. I am trying to get you to look beyond your obvious visceral reaction to something you call “American conservatism” and Rush, etc. and look at why they might be questioning some of the things the Pope has been saying. And also try to get you to see how one’s experiences might partly shape their opinions. But this is what I get out of your posts: “anyone who is not Catholic should shut up about anything the Pope says.” and “any Catholic who remotely criticizes or tries to understand those criticizing the Pope is disrespecting him.” Which is strange, because 1) the Pope is not just the leader of the Catholic Church but also a world leader (i.e. non-catholics have every reason to be interested in what he is saying). 2) the Pope is not infallible on economics, causes of poverty, etc. Its one thing to listen and consider seriously what he says on every topic, but that doesn’t mean we can’t question him on some things, and even disagree.

[wdtprs.com/blog/2013/12/fox-news-opinion-piece-blasts-pope-francis-as-the-catholic-churchs-obama/](http://wdtprs.com/blog/2013/12/fox-news-opinion-piece-blasts-pope-francis-as-the-catholic-churchs-obama/)

You are the one rationalizing out of fear that the Pope has damaged a “free market message”

I do not think it is good practice to blow him off, as that Stuart Varney gentleman did, whenever he as a TEACHER becomes politically inconvenient to one’s complacency in following an ideology.

freakoutnation.com/2013/11/27/fox-business-host-stuart-varney-weighs-in-on-the-pope-suddenly-hates-religion-mixed-with-politics/

Now you seem to be the one projecting others’ criticisms on to me, Veridical. I am not rationalizing anything, I am not “complacently following an ideology”, I have said nothing disrespectful about the Pope. I don’t necessarily agree with all the criticisms of the Pope coming from certain people. I am merely trying to understand that perspective of the Pope as well as those who criticize him.

But I can see by reading your rather tedious and long winded posts that you’re convinced that anyone who questions what the Pope says is disrespecting him. Good luck with that, Veridical.

Ishii