I usually ignore Rush Limbaugh because he’s intentionally provocative, and I don’t feel like being a puppet on his string. But, sometimes, he says something so savory and satisfying that I can help gloating. His response to Pope Francis’s critique of unfettered capitalism is an example of this:
“I mentioned, last night — I was doing show prep last night — usual routine. And I ran across this — I don’t actually know what it’s called — the latest papal offering, statement from Pope Francis. Now, up until this — I’m not Catholic. Up until this, I have to tell you, I was admiring the man. I thought he was going a little overboard on the “common man” touch, and I thought there might have been a little bit of PR involved there. But nevertheless, I was willing to cut him some slack. I mean, if he wants to portray himself as still from the streets of where he came from and is not anything special, not aristocratic, if he wants to eschew the physical trappings of the Vatican — OK, cool, fine.
“But this that I came across last night — I mean, it totally befuddled me. If it weren’t for capitalism, I don’t know where the Catholic Church would be. Now, as I mentioned before, I’m not Catholic. I admire it profoundly, and I’ve been tempted a number of times to delve deeper into it. But the pope here has now gone beyond Catholicism here, and this is pure political. Now, I want to share with you some of this stuff.
“”Pope Francis attacked unfettered capitalism as ‘a new tyranny.’ He 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, Pope Francis went further than previous comments criticizing the global economic system, attacking the ‘idolatry of money.’ “
“I’ve gotta be very caref– I have been numerous times to the Vatican. It wouldn’t exist without tons of money. But, regardless, what this is — somebody has either written this for him or gotten to him. This is just pure Marxism coming out of the mouth of the pope. There’s no such — “unfettered capitalism”? That doesn’t exist anywhere.
I’m not Catholic, either, but I do admire the Church’s dedication to giving assistance to the needy. When the pope calls on the world’s leaders “to fight poverty and growing inequality,” he isn’t saying that government should get out of the way to make space for more Catholic or Christian charity. This wasn’t a call for more private sector solutions. It was a near-total rebuke to conservative economic ideology.
As ProgLegs points out, it’s quite a turnaround from El Rushbo’s recent assertion that Pope Francis is a conservative. Now, because he doesn’t approve of Reaganomics, the pope is a Marxist.
Pardon me while I enjoy this.
Wingnut heads have been popping with great regularity due to this new pope. I consider it an early christmas present.
But what were they expecting? A latin american jesuit was never going to tow the anglo/ euro austerity line.
The problem is that the Pope(aka Frankie Baby) would still vote the GOP if he lived here because: ABORTION!! GAY MARRIAGE!!
Not sure about that. He’s made it clear that he thinks those issues are not the most important by a mile.
Only two of those from Latin/South America that were considered “papable” wouldn’t have towed the anglo/euro austerity line. But sort of doubt that was a prime consideration. After Bennie and the sex abuse scandals, good PR that distanced the church from both seemed to be required. Someone not tainted by the sex abuse and more pastoral than political. Someone that wasn’t strident and divisive. And not too young. That reduced the possible candidates down to one.
About that other non-neo-liberal Latin Cardinal – an address in Irving, TX, Oct. 2013
Consider the comic irony that even a Pope can’t pass the conservative purity test.
Limbaugh is befuddled. As always.
I find it interesting that Rush has enough self-awareness to know he has to be careful making these comments.
I agree, the idea of Rush befuddled…not quite as good as my morning coffee and muffin, but I’ll take it.
What I’m also finding interesting is the purity left’s reaction to this Pope. He’s by far and away more liberal and open than I ever thought we’d see in Rome again, but because he hasn’t signed on to every single issue the left holds dear, he’s a sham. That’s okay, Your Holiness, you’re in very good company. They feel that way about our President, too.
Interesting statement from a man who makes his income sowing the seeds of division/hatred.
The cognitive dissonance is always turned up to 11 with El Rushbo. That includes the self-created Spanish-satirizing nickname for an unreformed racist.
I’m not a Catholic either, but I am shocked and insulted at the very suggestion that a major religious institution would interject itself into politics.
It’s not an interjection into politics – i.e. into the political practice of a any nation in particular; it’s about the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church on poverty and stating the obligation of Catholics in that light. Roman Catholicism has a complex church structure and a body of [almost] 2000 years of teachings on theology and doctrine – contrast with Protestantism which, in most instances, roughly speaking, has decentralized structures and with that no structures within which theology is developed [Protestant theology is developed by theologians within the theology of that tradition, but isn’t formally “adopted” by the denomination, so to speak; think of Kierkegaard vs Thomas Aquinas, for example, though of course Luther and Calvin as founders of their denomination have special standing]. Anyway, Roman Catholicism’s teaching on the poor are longstanding.
Do I suck at sarcasm that bad?
no, I got the sarcasm, just taking the opportunity to be pedantic about the categories. shouldn’t really be classified as political involvement. don’t think I explained it very well though.
Is that shocked as in “Shocked! Shocked!…” from the movie Casablanca?
I am not Catholic but my extended family is (oldest uncle is a retired priest, oldest aunt, RIP, was a nun). Wife was raised Catholic, we were married in a Catholic church and my wife has been off-and-on Catholic over the years. I didn’t object when she enrolled our two youngest in a Catholic elementary school, but I also didn’t object when they both later elected to go to public school. So, despite never being a Catholic I’m familiar with the institution, the rituals, and because my wife is someone who actually reads the Catholic Catechism and spends time in discussion with Catholics I’m familiar with a lot of the teachings and history.
The truth is that what this pope is saying/doing is very radical, but at the same time the previous popes haven’t been the total Republican stooges that many of the American Cardinals, Bishops, and Priests have been.
First, the sex abuse problems were severe, extensive, and were engrained in the fiber of the Catholic priesthood. By that I mean the practices were certainly not universal but they were universally tolerated and thus accepted. Among Catholics this topic is extremely unpleasant and there isn’t an overriding concensus about it.
Second, Catholic teachings on the role of women, abortion, and birth control are simply wrong, and are the areas of biggest conflict with Catholics and recent ex-Catholics.
Third, Catholic teachings on the topics of war, poverty, health care, and the environment have been consistently liberal/progressive for decades, however the US media and the rightwing US Catholics have downplayed those teachings to the point that most people don’t know them. JP II and Benedict both spent more time on those topics than on the topic of abortion, but you wouldn’t know it if all you listened to was US media. For the record, official Catholic teaching is very open on many other topics that fundamentalists hold dear – they are fine with evolution and the age of the earth, don’t believe that the bible is the literal truth, and the Catechism teaches that one is to follow his/her own conscience rather than rote following words from others.
Fourth, there are a lot of conservative, GOP-supporting Catholics in the US who have a lot of trouble with all of the liberal/progressive positions listed in the paragraph above – Pat Buchanan is a prominent example – and tries to ignore them or rationalize them as best they can.
What the last two popes did, however, was circle the wagons and embrace the loyalists – to make the church smaller but more pure. This wasn’t about the above teachings so much as about internal politics.
The new pope is re-opening the church to everyone and explicitly not judging members if they don’t follow all the teachings. In the process he is going out of his way to emphasize and promote the liberal teachings – those that owe more to the Sermon on the Mount and pretty much ignore the tone of the whole old testament.
This shake up is causing some really debate in the church. A lot of people are attending mass for the first time in years, but at the same time a lot of people who regularly attended are very conflicted.
.
This was my recent comment and I’ll add a prediction: Pope Francis will make a difference with American Catholics and give hope to the less fortunate. This will give renewed hope from the days of Pope John XXIII. The pope also stated healthcare is a human right and hopefully women rights will be part of his renewal. The Catholic hierarchy will have to adapt. The call by the bishops to vote Republican will be voiced less often or not heard by the laity.
Have a quibble with this:
They may have said more words that reflected the liberal/progressive elements in Catholic teachings, but those words often sounded rote and lacked supporting deeds. JPII crushed the Latin American liberation theology movement and Benedict elevated the rightwing and fascist Opus Dei. For JPII’s denunciation of the invasion of Iraq to carry any weight, it required more than words. He could have excluded those that voted for it from the Sacrament of Communion.
Wonderful post, Caboose.
I’m in a similar situation, Unitarian-Universalist paired with a Catholic woman for 28 years, and agree completely.
Practical Catholics seem to ignore the crap, and embrace the community. Results = a very impressive community.
A century ago, we used to call that “Protestant intolerance.” It’s Rush’s cash crop.
Anyone to the left of Urban II would have royally pissed off the right-leaning American Catholic establishment. Francis is a pleasant surprise, however.
Of course, Benedict IX is probably more in the style of American conservatism.
Quick! Someone tell Rush that Thomas Jefferson was a Marxist too! Maybe his head will finally explode.
.
In 1789 Paris was seized by the revolutionaries and Marie Antoinette and her husband King Louis XVI were held as prisoners at the Palace of Tuileries until 1792 when they were charged with treason. Both were sentenced to die by beheading. Louis was beheaded on Jan. 21, 1793 and Marie followed him to her death in October of that same year.
Catholic social teaching just doesn’t fit on the liberal/conservative grid. That’s because it is way older and, I would say, a lot deeper.
I’m reminded that Dorothy Day and Peter Maurin, founders of “The Catholic Worker”, and many of similar mind, were devout Catholics.