Rush Limbaugh Doesn't Get Pope Francis

Catholic Answers ^ | December 4, 2013 | Trent Horn

[beandog]

FR would be a better place if you would go away.

[miss marmelstein]

No, I never heard that. But what does that have to do with what we are talking about?

[SumProVita]

If he’s using “justice” as the standard liberal code word for income redistribution,...

________________________________

That a might big IF.

:-)

[rollo tomasi]

"Pope was showing that an economic policy by itself will not cause the necessary change because there IS a spiritual dimension that is often avoided."

Regurgitated milk for any serious Christian and a large amount of cannon fodder for politicians who will use this Pope's message as a means to control and destroy.

I read this convoluted "mistranslation" or whatever apologist are saying, thinking the water is about to get real muddy over this vague "glass of milk" that has been preached many times over by Holy men. Obama is already "running" with this "mistranslated" convoluted crap and I do mean convoluted crap. The "meat" is in the details and DIRECT examples, the "milk" I picked up in kindergarten by memorizing Deuteronomy 15:11 and pondering Mark 10:21 in a Catholic school.

"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 two points?"--Obama, inspired by the Pope's "mistranslation" to a bunch of "milk drinkers". Then the reprobate drove the inequality bit from the Pope's "mistranslation" all the way home to his mesmorizing followers (While Democrat "Catholics" were further reinforced of their choices in the voting booth).

Without specific details, examples, intellectual reasons, and direct admonishment on the perpetrator's in the Pope's mind, the waters will continue to become muddy while the cannon fodder will be used by the reprobates.

[ZX12R]

I understand what you are trying to compare here....but the question was whether or not one supports capitalism without ANY controls?

And I understand the point you're trying to get across, in what he said. But the words "vigilance", "states charged with", and "control" imply forced charity for the purpose of eliminating or minimizing poor people. Ridding the world of poor people,(although Jesus said we'd always have them) is perhaps the mandate of religious folks, organizations and perhaps society in general. The government should never have the slightest role in it.

Whether or not there are any controls on capitalism, gets addressed by our representatives that we send to Washington.

This topic should never have passed the Pope's lips, and for MANY reasons. It makes him look like a politician. Maybe he's planning on running for the New World Order president, when the Anti-Christ takes over.

[NKP_Vet]

Let us pray for Francis, our Pope.

May the Lord preserve him, and give him life, and make him blessed upon the earth, and deliver him not up to the will of his enemies. [Psalm 40:3)

O God, Shepherd and Ruler of all Thy faithful people, look mercifully upon Thy servant Francis, whom Thou hast chosen as shepherd to preside over Thy Church. Grant him, we beseech Thee, that by his word and example, he may edify those over whom he hath charge, so that together with the flock committed to him, may he attain everlasting life. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.

[JediJones]

Yep, bitching about “income equality” is Marxism, pure and simple. If you’re not a Marxist, “income equality” is neither a goal nor a concern. Under capitalism, if someone has more income, it simply means they’ve been very successful at producing goods and services that people want to buy. Every dollar they’ve legally earned is a measure of how much they’ve improved people’s lives.

[Hostage]

Ronald Reagan was Presbyterian who was incredibly and simultaneously stern, compassionate, inspiring and motivating to Americans. He made people proud to be American and to try harder but he was no pushover and everyone knew this.

As for his actions on immigration, RR did not have the benefit of hindsight as we have today. Latinos represented a minuscule portion of the population during RR’s terms and their numbers inside the USA were not clear at all. There were practically no day laborer centers with hundreds of Mexicans or homes with 25 and 30 Mexicans living in them or so many on food stamps and Medicaid. Practically none of that existed in RR’s time. It was estimated that only about 2 million would be granted amnesty. He also worked a deal to help foster industries inside Mexico as a way of enticing the population there to stay put.

And remember RR brought the economy roaring back to life so there were plenty of jobs for everyone. Remember too that Mexicans are like brothers to many of us; we don’t hate them. What we are against is how they are used by the democrats and how certain of their leaders advocate reconquista that signals they would never be loyal Americans but would always be required to have allegiance to Mexico.

If RR was President today, you can take it to the bank that he would with the knowledge and experience we have today, he would not support immigration reform in its present proposal.

RR would likely not have built the border fence either because he didn’t like walls. But he would have beefed up border security in every other respect and he would have pinned Mexico on a deal to cooperate on border security.

One thing is for sure, RR would have demolished the Ted Kennedy chain immigration because of the rampant abuses and costs it has created.

I know that Ronald Reagan always had America first in his heart.

[rockrr]

I pray that he comes to know clarity. Amen.

[JediJones]

Your defense simply doesn't coincide with anything he said. You might want to THINK he said that, but it requires you to ignore his words.

He said he wants an economic system with more "justice" and "inclusiveness." That has absolutely nothing to do with your interpretation. If he had said what you said, quoted below, I'd be all for it. But he didn't, not even close. It's wishful thinking on your part.

The Gospel isn’t about how to make money. It’s about how we are saved and how we can and do become a new and better creation through Jesus Christ.

[miss marmelstein]

I knew the Duke had a grandson who was a priest. Does anyone know if Rush is contemplating a conversion? I've thought that for a while. No evidence - just from the way he speaks. He's talking about Catholicism right now.

[Salvation]

Great post. Thanks.

[FourtySeven]

Amen.

[NKP_Vet]

If Rush converted he would have to slow down on the wives, he’s on #4 now.

[SumProVita]

But the words “vigilance”, “states charged with”, and “control” imply forced charity for the purpose of eliminating or minimizing poor people.

______________________________________

I disagree completely. It greatly depends on the context and the motive of the one using those words.

[FourtySeven]

Thanks.

The point that this encyclical wasn’t really about “economics”, rather about how is the Gospel message spread most effectively, seems lost on many. Even now. It seems many don’t want to admit that because it would put Rush in a bad light.

The fact that Rush stepped into this fray, and is now being called out for his faulty analysis, seems to have engendered “support” from his fans, to defend him from any and all criticism. Which is further complicating this issue.

I like Rush and he’s right on many issues. But any considerations of “mistranslation” aside, even beyond that, he’s clearly taken the Pope entirely out of context. By every definition of the word “context”!

I know it’s difficult for some to believe around here but Rush can be wrong sometimes.

[Salvation]

Usually it is the well-educated, the Anglicans and other ministers who convert. One that I can think of right now is Newt Gingrich. who is definitely a historian.

[SumProVita]

I like Rush and don’t know if he’s contemplated Catholicism in that way. Perhaps we ought to pray for him. ;-)

I found this on the Acton Institute blog this morning and it may be of interest. The Acton Institute is excellent!

**Audio: Samuel Gregg Discusses ‘Evangelii Gaudium’ on Kresta in the Afternoon

Continuing our roundup of Acton comment on Evangelii Gaudium, here’s Acton’s Director of Research and Author of Tea Party Catholic Samuel Gregg joining host Al Kresta on Ave Maria Radio’s Kresta in the Afternoon to discuss Pope Francis’ Apostolic Exhortation, with particular emphasis on its economic elements. This interview took place on Monday, December 2nd.**

Link: (Scroll down to Kresta in the Afternoon – December 2, 2013 – Hour 1)

http://www.avemariaradio.net/archive-categories/kresta-in-the-afternoon

[rockrr]

Thanks for a great post.

Our FRiend NKP_Vet has no aversion to trampling on ANY conservative icon in his pursuit of apologist for the church. Personally I find it crude and offensive but I do understand that he has to work with the limited tools available to him.