Rush knows better?

Rush Limbaugh claims to be a fan of Catholicism. He’s just not a fan of the Pope’s Catholicism:

Pope Francis: Successor to St. Peter … the people’s pontiff … Marxist?

That’s what conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh suggests, calling the Pope’s latest document “pure Marxism.”

Limbaugh blasted the pontiff on Wednesday, a day after Francis released “Evangelii Gaudium” (The Joy of the Gospel), a 50,000-word statement that calls for church reform and castigates elements of modern capitalism.

Limbaugh’s segment, now online and entitled “It’s Sad How Wrong Pope Francis Is (Unless It’s a Deliberate Mistranslation By Leftists),” takes direct aim at the pope’s economic views, calling them “dramatically, embarrassingly, puzzlingly wrong.”

The Vatican issued the English translation of “Evangelii,” which is known officially as an apostolic exhortation and unofficially as a pep talk to the worlds 1.5 billion Catholics.

Francis – the first pope ever to hail from Latin America, where he worked on behalf of the poor in his native Argentina – warned in “Evangelii” that the “idolatry of money” would lead to a “new tyranny.”

The Pope also blasted “trickle-down economics,” saying the theory “expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power.”

At least one Catholic organizations has voiced its displeasure with Rush’s remarks.

RE has written extensively about the conservative movement’s “Cafeteria Catholics.” Today’s Republican party, as exemplified by Mr. Limbaugh, has attempted to resolve any conflicts between its Christian wing and its Wall Street wing by repurposing Christianity as the worship of divinely mandated free markets and capitalism (and a Randian version of capitalism at that). It doesn’t make any sense, but a hell of a lot of people have bought into it.

This entry was posted in Politics, Religion. Bookmark the permalink.
  • http://www.tarheelred.com/ Pino

    Francis – the first pope ever to hail from Latin America, where he
    worked on behalf of the poor in his native Argentina – warned in
    “Evangelii” that the “idolatry of money” would lead to a “new tyranny.”

    The Pope also blasted “trickle-down economics,” saying the theory
    “expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding
    economic power.”

    I can resonate with what the Pope is saying. In the quest for more and more money we see people move 3-4-5 or more times. We see parents travel for their job 3-4-5 days a week often times more than 30-40 weeks a year.

    We see stupid hours spent at the office.

    And that’s the run of the mill “earn it” people. Forget about the people who are devious, wicked and do’ers of unconscionable acts just to get ahead – get that promotion or win that deal.

    Indeed, the “idolatry of money” is a powerful bad.

    But his remarks on the market are simply childish and silly.

    We’ll see if the image I’m about to upload works, but a quick glance at the chart shows how powerful markets are at delivering food to people.

    divinely mandated free markets and capitalism

    I don’t think that everyone is equally better off as a result of free markets. However, I think that the vast majority of people are significantly better off than they otherwise would have been. And the folks who might be worse off are a vanishingly few number of people.

    However, I don’t think that the answer to that dilemma is to institute state controls on that market. For example, I love the posts my liberals friends put up on social media where Jesus is extolling people to feed the hungry, heal the sick and take care of the poor and then say he is a “Socialist”. No one would deny that Jesus did in fact teach us that. However, what he did NOT say was to steal from your neighbor that you might feed the hungry.

    • http://poisonyourmind.com dedc79

      the core of my objection is this attempt to suggest a kind of biblical mandate for capitalism/free markets – the fusion of Atlas Shrugged and the Bible as if the two are at all consistent. Paul Ryan is one of the big offenders in this respect.
      I think we’ve argued the “taxation as theft” position to death at this point, and don’t really have the energy to get into it again.