Posted on 12/05/2013 6:26:41 AM PST by NYer
I believe you are mistaken.
Read the article, please. A comparison between Pope John Paul II and Pope Francis.
According to Pope Francis, those who advocate the “trickle down theory” are “naive.” According to Jesus, those who call their brother fool are guilty of murder.
How many times must we tell you people on the board that this time Rush was wrong?
Francis, IMHO, has been thoroughly Catholic in his actions and public proclamations, however, his role as Pope is different than Bishop. Christ chose Peter and not John the Beloved for a reason. The lives of the saints give witness to Christ and can be weird and counter cultural in doing so, a pope on the other hand has a Church to steer through time.
My hope would be that Francis be more prudent in placing his thoughts in the context of two thousand years of Christian thought as Benedict did. He could, for example, take Rerum Novarum and provide comment and extension from the time of its writing.
It’s the same frustration I feel in our current US politics in becoming a country of men instead of laws. It just has a real third-world political flavor to it...and it’s a bad taste.
Ping
The pope's comments look exactly like Marxism to me too. Maybe you'd care to explain the difference. It's too subtile for me to discern.
So what are you saying? Are you really trying to say that this Pope is not a bit naive and perhaps ignorant of economics? Are you saying he does not share the same views of the free market that is shared by many socialists, marxists, democrats and President Obama? Are you saying that the Pope didn’t just give Obamanomics a lift by giving him talking points?
Are you really trying to say, in serious conversation among adults, that Rush is wrong in the general sense about this Pope on economics? Really, thats a streeeeeeeeeeeeeeetch.
Wrong and wrong. Limbaugh speaks often of the yearning of the (universal) human spirit for liberty and freedom….and the Pope's comments about economics are (universally) wrong.
That's a pretty creepy way to support your position.
Why can’t people look objectively at this Pope?
If this particular phrase is a mistranslation, the Pope or those at the Vatican responsible for translation, should fix it. The unity of the faithful is, after all, very important.
This particular phrase comes from a string of something like eight paragraphs with only two references to the Bible or to prior teachings of the Church. One of these two references is a nothing burger. It is a reference to the golden calf as an idol. This reference doesn’t demonstrate that Aaron was a trickle-downer, so as to substantiate the assertion of the Pope that free-market economics is idol worship. The traditional understanding is that Aaron was persuaded by those who would have the children of Israel “return to Egypt” (trade freedom for the security of slavery). To me, the populists are the ones who would have us return to Egypt; but, that’s just me. I don’t mean to question whether populists have evil intent or accuse them of idol-worshipping the state.
The other reference is to an early Doctor of the church. Yes, that person said that the rich had a moral obligation to give to the poor. This is a long-established doctrine of the Church, and can be traced to Jesus (e.g., Lazarus and the rich man) and to the Hebrew scriptures. But, that person also taught that forced sharing of the wealth would do no good. So, I am thinking how can a person be cited as an authority on a pick and choose basis? If he is an authority on one thing (the moral obligation of the rich to be charitable), how is he not an authority on the other thing (that charity, to be effective, must be voluntary)?
If the Catholic Church were to say it is possible, as a practical matter, for the government administer a portion of what would be charity, as long as it is sure to allow a significant portion of charity to the private and voluntary sector, I’d be o.k. with that. But, to just ignore thousands of years of tradition, that’s not fair to those in the Church who found comfort in that tradition.
Limbaugh was as close to 100% right in his pronouncements, much as the pope was so very wrong.
War Ronald Reagan a Catholic?
Limbaugh needs to go away. He is a faux expert who most assuredly does NOT speak for the Savior.
“Catholics do not have to listen to the Pope when he blathers on about political or social issues”
If it’s a dogma of the Church you had better listen and follow the Catechism of the Catholic Church. No abortion, no women ordination, no homosexual “marriage”. These are non-negotiable truths of the Catholic Church. If a Catholic does not agree with them, he should not refer to himself as a Catholic. I would suggest they convert to Episcopalian.
Not everyone agrees with the pope or “infalability.”
Rush is free to believe as he wishes.
Francis’ comments are being taking by homosexuals as “sanctioning” their mating habbits.
If a Catholic does not agree with them, he should not refer to himself as a Catholic. I would suggest they convert to Episcopalian.
OR....just register as a democrat.
No. What's RR have to do with the current discussion?
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but in this case, I don't think Rush ever claimed to speak for anyone but himself.
the pope like other religious figures who push socialism in south america or southwest united states have no clue.
Rush is correct to be critical of this pope on this issue.
I also do not see the vatican selling their stock shares to give away free money.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.