Posted on 12/05/2013 6:26:41 AM PST by NYer
In a recent segment on his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh talked about the pope’s new apostolic exhortation Evangelii Gaudium. I don’t have the space to address everything Limbaugh said, but what struck me was his mischaracterization of Pope Francis's comments about economics.
The fundamental problem was that Limbaugh chose to quote not what Pope Francis wrote but a Washington Post article on the exhortation, which stated:
Pope Francis attacked unfettered capitalism as "a new tyranny" and beseeched global leaders to fight poverty and growing inequality, in a document on Tuesday setting out a platform for his papacy and calling for a renewal of the Catholic Church. . . . In it, Francis went further than previous comments criticizing the global economic system, attacking the "idolatry of money."
Limbaugh responded by saying, “This is just pure Marxism coming out of the mouth of the pope. Unfettered capitalism? That doesn't exist anywhere. 'Unfettered capitalism' is a liberal socialist phrase to describe the United States.”
Comrade Francis?
Granted, it takes hours to read this massive document but, for someone whose words are heard by millions of people, before calling the pope a "Marxist" a simple use of the control+F function would have been warranted. If Limbaugh had done that, he would have found that the phrase “unfettered capitalism” does not appear in Evangelii Gaudium.
Neither is the global economy the main theme of this exhortation; rather, it's only one area where Pope Francis is calling on the Church to evangelize the world. He describes specific financial and cultural challenges facing the human community and then addresses the temptations of pastors who must face these challenges. Nowhere does the Pope blame humanity’s woes on the concept of the free market or demand a Marxist government to save mankind.
A Betrayal of John Paul II?
Limbaugh later said, “[J]uxtaposed against the actions of Pope John Paul II, this pope and the things that he released yesterday or recently are really striking.”
No, they aren’t. In his 1991 encyclical Centesimus Annus, Pope John Paul II reflected on socialism and capitalism in light of the recent fall of the Soviet Union. Although he acknowledged that profit has a “legitimate role” in the function of a business and that “the Marxist solution” to economic inequality had failed, he also spoke of the “inadequacies of capitalism” and said that profit is the not the only indicator that a business is doing well. The human dignity of workers matter too, and if capitalism is left unchecked it becomes “ruthless” and leads to “inhuman exploitation.” Pope Francis's words are consistent with John Paul's.
Limbaugh continued:
You talk about unfettered, this is an unfettered anti-capitalist dictate from Pope Francis. And listen to this. This is an actual quote from what he wrote. "The culture of prosperity deadens us. We are thrilled if the market offers us something new to purchase. In the meantime, all those lives stunted for lack of opportunity seem a mere spectacle. They fail to move us." I mean, that's pretty profound. That's going way beyond matters that are ethical. This is almost a statement about who should control financial markets. He says that the global economy needs government control.
But the Pope is not saying that. He is saying that a global economy needs global control, not government control in the form of some creepy one-world government that runs everything. Pope Francis said, “If we really want to achieve a healthy world economy, what is needed at this juncture of history is a more efficient way of interacting which, with due regard for the sovereignty of each nation [emphasis added], ensures the economic well-being of all countries, not just of a few (206).”
A Complex Question
The Church teaches that the dignity of the human person and the management of global economies is more complex than just choosing "capitalism" over "socialism/communism." What is required is an approach that respects individual freedom without allowing that freedom to become some all-consuming monster that tramples the weak and poor.
In Centesimus Annus, Pope John Paul II was asked if capitalism should be the dominant economic model in light of the fall of the USSR. His answer is insightful, and I think it's an excellent parallel to Pope Francis's attitude on the subject. Pope John Paul II said:
The answer is obviously complex. If by "capitalism" is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative, even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a "business economy," "market economy" or simply "free economy." But if by "capitalism" is meant a system in which freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed within a strong juridical framework which places it at the service of human freedom in its totality and sees it as a particular aspect of that freedom, the core of which is ethical and religious, then the reply is certainly negative.
The reality is that the Catholic Church, and Pope Francis included, cannot simply say it is for or against capitalism. It’s a complex question. While the Washington Post said Pope Francis issued a “decidedly populist teaching” the Pope said in Evangelii Gaudium that he was not arguing for “an irresponsible populism,” or a solution that naively pits the poor against the rich (204).
On the other hand, while the Pope might agree with Limbaugh that Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” can lift some people out of poverty, it can also strangle the life out of the poor, and so the Pope says in that same paragraph that we can no longer trust the market alone to ensure that all people are treated with dignity.
In closing, I think that the following paragraph from the Pope’s exhortation is something that should be mailed to Limbaugh and maybe we can turn down the heat just a little bit:
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. My words are not those of a foe or an opponent. I am interested only in helping those who are in thrall to an individualistic, indifferent and self-centered mentality to be freed from those unworthy chains and to attain a way of living and thinking which is more humane, noble and fruitful, and which will bring dignity to their presence on this earth (208).
Good post. Please see #139.
;-)
PS I agree about Rush. I like him very much and he has made mistakes in the past but was a gentleman of integrity when he discovered the error and apologized.
Wha??? Only well-educated people convert?? Hope I’m misinterpreting.
Seriously, in a general comment, Rush is again hinting at his unique interest in Catholacism. I realize he isn’t on the “intellectual” level of those posting here but it intrigues the hell out of me.
And neither do I.
After reading through this thread, I’m laughing at the righteous among us who continue to dismiss others here.
When this Pope decides to enforce excommunicating the likes of Pelosi, I’ll pay attention again. I wonder, just how can it be that a vast majority of what he says is always, always, always, misunderstood??
“From each according to his abilities, “Anyone who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without feminine upheaval. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex, the ugly ones included.” “Democracy is the road to socialism.” “The way people get their living determines their social outlook.” Manifesto of the Communist Party Is Francis the False Prophet ? "Capitalism" is a pejorative term created by Marxists
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
to deride Freedom and Liberty. "Workers of the world unite;
Karl Marx
you have nothing to lose but your chains".
to each according to his needs.”
It’s the cult of personality.
Good point. And why is he always issuing updates to correct his past statements?
Just like Newt!
Thanks.
That’s an interesting link to Kresta in the Afternoon. I may listen to that audio on the way home.
And yes, I agree Rush has an excellent track record of admitting his mistakes as a gentleman. I certainly hope he repeats such behavior now.
I hope so too. So...let’s pray for him! ;-)
It seems that there was a Reform Movement
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
with that theme some time ago.
Bovine Excrement.
Rush uses the plain meaning of words, where psychopathic Catholics twist every word to suit their purposes of constant deception.
What I meant is that he is not speaking ex Cathedra on these issues; that’s all I meant. Sorry if it was misinterpreted.
The reason I posted what I did was based on the central theme of the encyclical in question, not portions of it, but the entire theme.
You may chose to ignore the central theme of the encyclical if you wish, basing your opinion of same on sound bytes and isolated quotes, but in doing so you miss the central point I emphasized. And to be blunt, to draw conclusions about the Pope’s economic preferences based on isolated quotes and sound bytes may be the “American way”, but it’s not intellectually honest.
There was a Reformation fought over this very issue.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
“Latinos represented a minuscule portion of the population during RR’s terms and their numbers inside the USA were not clear at all.”
When Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980 there were about 14.5 million hispancis, now maybe 52 million. So they were 6 percent of the population back then; 16 percent now. But they were still the second largest minority group in 1980.
“And remember RR brought the economy roaring back to life so there were plenty of jobs for everyone.”
Increased defense spending—which was urgently needed—was a big reason for that. But it was also under President Reagan that manufacturing jobs really started to move offshore (although that trend did begin in the 1970s) and we became more dependent on lower-paying service jobs and well-paying high tech jobs that most Americans have a hard time with.
“RR would likely not have built the border fence either because he didn’t like walls.”
Reagan understood the difference between walls built to keep people in (e.g. Berlin) and to keep lawbreakers out (border fence).
Redirect... shame if you out The Poop...
Go away, please. Do not think that by criticizing a pope, a Catholic becomes a Protestant or anything else.
Well I suppose you can call me a heretic too, because while I am not a Catholic basher, I am also not a Catholic or any other religion for that matter.
I love Jesus Christ, and have faith in Him and know he exists, however, I do not trust religion, and I do not need any other human being to help me love Jesus. Were I alone on this earth, I believe He would still be with me.
I figured I’d tell you this about myself so that you know where I’m coming from, and perhaps I am coming from ignorance, but it is what it is.
I’m also saying Pope Francis isn’t reaching me, he’s pushing me away, and I’m not the only one who feels this way.
If that 1% is communism and/ or socialism, then the other 99% doesn’t matter and isn’t going to be heard by me.
Read this politician’s take on the Pope bashing. She is right on the money in her assertions. And guess what, she’s a democrat! A pro-life, pro-marriage, pro-family democrat. Although she is in the wrong party, I like her message.
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.