Yep,like Rush Limbaugh said..."America is going down the tube"...God HELP the USA!

  • Thread starter Thread starter paulhoward1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
godisgood77 said:
I often think of this great quote from JXXIII when I hear pessimistic voices like Rush’s…

"In the daily exercise of Our pastoral office, it sometimes happens that We hear certain opinions which disturb Us—opinions expressed by people who, though fired with a commendable zeal for religion, are lacking in sufficient prudence and judgment in their evaluation of events. They can see nothing but calamity and disaster in the present state of the world. They say over and over that this modern age of ours, in comparison with past ages, is definitely deteriorating. One would think from their attitude that history, that great teacher of life, had taught them nothing. They seem to imagine that in the days of the earlier councils everything was as it should be so far as doctrine and morality and the Church’s rightful liberty were concerned.

We feel that We must disagree with these prophets of doom, who are always forecasting worse disasters, as though the end of the world were at hand. "

It’s better to light one candle then to curse the darkness.
Click to expand...
By the same token … "It’s better to save candles if one is determined to keep one’s eyes closed and calls darkness “just as good as light (given that all is grey and who can know anything?)”.

Love Pope John XXIII. Need more context to understand this quote though.
For example - here’s one of his messages in full context that I can understand more easily (full of warnings though it is … it calls for peace “anxiously”).
Click to expand...
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3232
Click to expand...
< Pope John XXIII on 9/10/1961 (40 years and one day prior to 9/11/2001).

PJXXIII was disturbed by certain opinions (why disturbed)? Even if such opinions are “lacking in sufficient prudence and judgment in their evaluation of events”?

And if such opinions are wrong … why commend their zeal for religion?

Why not be specific and correct plainly the wrong things said (name one for instance).

Perhaps the “they” is deliberately vague on the Pope’s part - so as to give a general counsel of “hope” in a climate of “despair” if THAT is what he had seen.

But its hard for me to make heads or tails of it beyond my above speculation. Except that he wasn’t talking about Rush Limbaugh (who would have been about 9 or 10 years old at the time Pope died).

This was stated in what? 1962? When abortion was crime throughout the U.S. … and further, was it LEGAL and sanctioned anywhere? It was being DONE, yes. But I think Good Pope John XXIII must have given a warning or two in his time (short though it was).

Sometimes the “we’re going to hell in a handbasket” is less “despair” and more of a sober assessment of a presently horrible situation (or direction) in a nation or the world. In my opinion.

The “handbasket” idea as an assessment had been CORRECTLY put forth by such notables from scripture as: Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Jonah (with … commendable religious zeal too … even if Jonah couldn’t let go of his when it was time to). Not to compare Rush Limbaugh to these … but … alerting people to imminent danger is NOT always despair (however the cliche may look on paper).

Why give the warning if one despairs of anyone listening to it?

I don’t always agree with Rush. But (as a comparison) … if a weather predictor warned me of a possible hurricane - and then it didn’t happen – would I have a bitter moment cursing the messenger who believed it to be true? Never listen to another warning because an “opinion disturbed me?”

Summary: Thanks for the Pope John XXIII quote (presuming its actually legit)*. It doesn’t particularly apply to Rush Limbaugh in my opinion.

** Hard to follow “The Pope’s” quote above. It might have been a late 50’s/early '60’s thing. Some quotes from Dwight Eisenhower* from that period are equally undecipherable and nebulous (as are some from Yogi Berra and Casey Stengel for that matter). 🤷 😉 (Kidding of course … did need context of the Pope’s speech though in this case)
 
This is turning into spamming. The OP has posted the same link to the same song numerous times on CAF under different pretenses.

The song is bad, and spamming won’t change that and convince people to like it.
 
Hate to bear the bad news Paul, but it’s been going downhill since Henry VIII decided he was the one to decide who’s married and who’s not.

And then, fifty years ago, artificial contraception reared its ugly head. So, yeah, you’re not digging far enough. Protestantism is to blame for this. Not Protestants, the worshippers, but Protestantism, the idea that the Bible interprets itself.

Didn’t God’s prophets equate idolatry with adultery? Now we’re beginning to see why.
 
It really is a terrible song and one that does not espouse that which we should believe as Catholics. It really has no place here.
 
Joe_5859 said:
If you want more context for the quote, you can see it in his Opening Speech for the Second Vatican Council. In this case, I think the quote stands pretty well on its own.
Click to expand...
Thank you Joe. That does help me. Pope John XXIII (in context) is not so much dismissing anyone who acknowledges problems in the world as he is determinedly taking a hopeful attitude forward at all times (as I see it). In his quotes below (some of the Pope’s sentences run quite long before one gets to the period )- I highlight the Pope’s mention of the serious problems (which, let’s admit he doesn’t quite ever do in a “world is going to hell in a handbasket” TONE) in RED . < PRETTY long sentence for me too 😃 :blushing:

He does this quite well – even while acknowledging some serious problems (like some of the Cardinals from “certain countries” not being allowed to attend Vatican II).

The distinction I needed was made most plain in the section titled “How to Repress Errors”.

He explains his preference for doing this in a different manner than past Councils thusly:
Pope John XXIII: The Church has always opposed these errors. Frequently she has condemned them with the greatest severity.
Click to expand...
Nowadays however, the Spouse of Christ prefers to make use of the medicine of mercy rather than that of severity. She consider that she meets the needs of the present day by demonstrating the validity of her teaching rather than by condemnations.
Click to expand...
Not, certainly, that there is a lack of fallacious teaching, opinions, and dangerous concepts to be guarded against and dissipated.
Click to expand...
But these are so obviously in contrast with the right norm of honesty, and have produced such lethal fruits that by now it would seem that men of themselves are inclined to condemn them, particularly those ways of life which despise God and His law or place excessive confidence in technical progress and a well-being based exclusively on the comforts of life.
Click to expand...
This last paragraph was so hopeful (and I think authored to INVITE that generation towards expressing their own acknowledgement of the truth of the Church teachings) as a fitting opening to the Council.

With the hindsight of what has transpired in the world since 1962 … maybe even he would agree now that the sentiments were overly sunny. Which is why I highlighted the last words in green.

Pope John XXIII appears to write more in the effusive style of (say) a Charles Dickens than a more easily quotable for soundbites and slogans “Hemmingway” brevity. But he’s well worth taking the time to read.

Actually, while their styles are quite different (*and any mere political commentator is likely to suffer in comparison to a person who has dedicated his whole life to God and has a more exalted job and a guarantee of infallibility in his regular teaching) * – Limbaugh and Pope John XXIII are more similar than different regarding substance.

Both unabashedly say " … THIS is TRUE" at times – with confidence sure to annoy those who subscribe to a comfortable moral relativity and a “What is Truth?” dismissive posture.

I find Rush Limbaugh to be more cheerful than cynical too. But let’s rather close with another gem from Pope John XXIII (from the same document … context, the opening of Vatican II):
… the Catholic Church, raising the torch of religious truth by means of this Ecumenical Council, desires to show herself to be the loving mother of all, benign, patient, full of mercy and goodness toward the brethren who are separated from her.
Click to expand...
To mankind, oppressed by so many difficulties, the Church says, as Peter said to the poor who begged alms from him: “I have neither gold nor silver, but what I have I give you; in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise and walk” (Acts 3:6).
Click to expand...
In other words, the Church does not offer to the men of today riches that pass, nor does she promise them merely earthly happiness. But she distributes to them the goods of divine grace which, raising men to the dignity of sons of God, are the most efficacious safeguards and aids toward a more human life.
Click to expand...
She opens the fountain of her life-giving doctrine which allows men, enlightened by the light of Christ, to understand well what they really are, what their lofty dignity and their purpose are, and, finally, through her children, she spreads everywhere the fullness of Christian charity, than which nothing is more effective in eradicating the seeds of discord, nothing more efficacious in promoting concord, just peace, and the brotherly unity of all.
Click to expand...
I see a beautiful integration of acknowledging real problems (not alarmism for its own sake) in a hopeful assessment of the future.

The Pope’s manner is somewhat like an epistle of Paul with its uplifting invitation - yet sober assessments of what must be made better.

Of course a Pope speaks of a kingdom not of this world. Good laypeople who are tending the garden of this world in an “On earth as it is in heaven …” led way are another part of the body.
 
How on earth can you compare Limbaugh and Pope John the 23rd? Limbaugh is an entertainer, and nothing more. He has no educational background in political science or sociology and especially not theology. Rush is a shock jock with a very brilliant idea on how to promote himself. Without him, the Republican Party might have more of a chance to regain the White House.🤷
 
kozlosap said:
Rushbo has been married 4 times and has no children. Can we all say in unison - “Contractiption Mentality” working it’s way with him??? LMFAO:eek:
Click to expand...
Ah, the first stone flies through the air!
 
TarkanAttila said:
Hate to bear the bad news Paul, but it’s been going downhill since Henry VIII decided he was the one to decide who’s married and who’s not.

And then, fifty years ago, artificial contraception reared its ugly head. So, yeah, you’re not digging far enough. Protestantism is to blame for this. Not Protestants, the worshippers, but Protestantism, the idea that the Bible interprets itself.

Didn’t God’s prophets equate idolatry with adultery? Now we’re beginning to see why.
Click to expand...
Good point. I’ll admit readily that, being a resident of the Bible Belt, I have come to respect the faith and morals some of my more Fundamentalist neighbors exhibit. I truly do. I do not, however, respect the Protestantism that, hundreds of years ago, ripped them from the Church that would have given them a steadier guide in their quests to know and serve God.
 
kozlosap said:
  1. How on earth can you compare Limbaugh and Pope John the 23rd?
  2. Limbaugh is an entertainer, and nothing more.
  3. He has no educational background in political science or sociology and especially not theology. Rush is a shock jock with a very brilliant idea on how to promote himself.
  4. Without him, the Republican Party might have more of a chance to regain the White House.🤷
Click to expand...
  1. I did compare them. I did not equate them. (This may be our main misunderstanding)
  2. Limbaugh is substantially more than an entertainer. He has influence.
  3. He seems to know right from wrong a good deal of the time … and comes down on the side of right. Some with such “education” are morally confused or devious. Dr. Goebbels had credentials that impressed some.
  4. They would? Seems as if the last two candidates for the White House were a bit “other” than Limbaugh Republicans … if there is such a thing. He endorsed no one during the GOP primaries. Romney afterwards.
Moving from disagreement (possibly) to an interesting query:

Had Pope John XXIII lived another 50 years does anyone imagine he’d have had nothing to say about abortion? Same sex marriage? Giving condoms to schoolchildren? Governments dictating that Church groups must commit mortal sins or be in violation of HHS mandates?

I don’t. Even if he spoke only of the highest ideals of the Church positions and NEVER criticized (or blasted) the evils confronted as Rush does - their bottom line positions on such issues would be the same (as it is with Pope Francis … though Francis may not know 😉 ).

Not a Catholic … Rush sometimes expresses his solidarity with the Church … and the current Pope.
Limbaugh March 14, 2013 on Pope Francis’ election:
Click to expand...
Pope Francis I is bad news for the Drive-By Media.
Click to expand...
He is adamantly opposed to abortion. He is adamantly opposed to** euthanasia**. He has called the pro-choice movement a culture of death. He opposes** same-sex marriage,** which he has called demonic in origin. He opposes gay adoption on the grounds that it is discriminatory to the child. He opposed Argentina’s legalizing of same-sex marriage. He called it a real and dire anthropological throwback. He was exiled by the Cristina Kirchner government. He was dispatched to the northern climes and the outposts of Argentina. He literally was cast out by the government.
Click to expand...
And you know who rescued him? John Paul II. He’s a protege, by the way, of John Paul II. John Paul II rescued Pope Francis from what essentially was internal exile, and he was made archbishop of Buenos Aires. And this just happened in early 2000. It’s not that long ago. The Argentinean government had basically taken this pope, cast him out. He was teaching math.
Click to expand...
I’d have held some of the same positions without Rush Limbaugh. But I know an ally when I see one. Allies aren’t always saints, nor do they say things in the ways I would (and people speaking like a Pope when they are not the Pope tends to make people mad … accuracy of their position good or no).

I am a Republican (at times a Reluct-lican) technically. But gaining the White House by caving into the worst elements of bad agenda because MY party would do the same things a little slower or less extremely … in the name of “peace” or “unity” is a recipe I don’t like to settle for … and certainly not to dedicate myself to accomplishing.

So like I say … I see some common ground. Of course I ALSO oppose the bolded things above like Limbaugh’s quote – and (more important) Pope Francis.

And koslosap – aren’t some of the bolded above objections some of the reasons you (seem to imply you) want the GOP to take the White House? I know its a litany of (wrong) things … and not all the same … but important issues to get right.
 
kozlosap said:
Rushbo has been married 4 times and has no children. Can we all say in unison - “Contractiption Mentality” working it’s way with him??? LMFAO:eek:
Click to expand...
I did not know that you had to have children to have an opinion about where the world is going. :confused: 😃 😛
 
kozlosap said:
How on earth can you compare Limbaugh and Pope John the 23rd? Limbaugh is an entertainer, and nothing more. He has no educational background in political science or sociology and especially not theology. Rush is a shock jock with a very brilliant idea on how to promote himself. Without him, the Republican Party might have more of a chance to regain the White House.🤷
Click to expand...
You can pickup quite an education just by living in the world and not spendting your time in school. The Republican Party can do quite nicly with or without you or Rush. :D:shrug:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top