Author Topic: Rush Limbaugh says Francis teaches pure Marxism (Read 1783 times)

Matto · « **on:** December 03, 2013, 02:44:50 PM »

Rush Limbaugh says Francis teaches “pure Marxism”

link

December 3, 2013

Rush Limbaugh

rushlimbaugh.com

RUSH: You know, the pope, Pope Francis — this is astounding — has issued an official papal proclamation, and it’s sad. It’s actually unbelievable. The pope has written, in part, about the utter evils of capitalism. And I have to tell you, I’ve got parts of it here I can share with you. It’s sad because this pope makes it very clear he doesn’t know what he’s talking about when it comes to capitalism and socialism and so forth. Wait ’til you hear it.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: I was doing show prep last night, usual routine, and I ran across this — I don’t even know what it’s called, the latest papal offering, statement from Pope Francis. Now, 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 where he came from and is not anything special, not aristocratic. If he wants to eschew the physical trappings of the Vatican, okay, cool, fine. But this that I came across last night 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. I want to share with you some of this stuff.

“Pope Francis attacked unfettered capitalism as ‘a new tyranny’ and beseeched global leaders to fight poverty and growing inequality, in a docuмent 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.’”

I gotta be very careful. 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. Unfettered capitalism? That doesn’t exist anywhere. Unfettered capitalism is a liberal socialist phrase to describe the United States. Unfettered, unregulated.

to read more click here: rushlimbaugh.com

Tags: Rush Limbaugh

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #1 on:** December 03, 2013, 03:12:36 PM »

The CAF crowd will really cut into Rush for stating the obvious.

Why is Pope Francis so fascinated with an economic system that believes man is an animal who seeks to fill his belly and sate his carnal appetite and nothing more? The popes of the past always eschewed socialism (I am using a generic term here, but Marxism could be substituted) because it was avowedly atheistic and also that it taught that man is reduced to only his base economic interests.

Pope Francis is not unaware of the 20th century track record of the left. He knows and he knows well. I think the problem is that he sees the destruction of the Marxists/socialists with their death camps and abortion mills and likes what he sees. Hard words, but we need to call a spade a spade.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #2 on:** December 03, 2013, 03:24:10 PM »

“Pope Francis attacked unfettered capitalism as ‘a new tyranny’ and beseeched global leaders to fight poverty and growing inequality, in a docuмent 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 calls this Marxism? I agree with Francis on this point.

LaramieHirsch · « **Reply #3 on:** December 03, 2013, 04:32:17 PM »

These days, I find myself agreeing with Ann Barnhardt a lot about this pope.

Quote

Pope Francis is a Peronist-Fascist which is a particular subset of Marxism in South America that believes that the state should control the economy and redistribute wealth.

Being that he is not terribly intelligent, he does not understand or have figured out that all political agitation for state-driven, forced coercion of “redistribution of wealth” has NOTHING to do with helping the poor and EVERYTHING to do with consolidating wealth and power among a cadre of oligarchs precisely by creating and then looting a massive underclass. Lenin called these people who actually believe that Marxism genuinely cares about the poor, “useful idiots”. Trapped by his own misguided belief that the poor are somehow INTRINSICALLY SPIRITUALLY SUPERIOR, when he sees the inevitable results of Marxism, namely the proliferation and spread of material poverty throughout a culture, he reconciles it in his own mind by canonizing the underclass and telling himself that they are spiritually “better off” for being materially poor. This is not a malevolent position, but it is a deeply stupid position.

This pope needs to respect the authority of his position and stop goofing off. He won't, of course. The chances of him turning in the right direction seem to be the same chances of him suddenly revealing the 3rd Secret of Fatima and consecrating Russia.

Meh. Whatever. The Church deserves him. And Dolan.

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #4 on:** December 03, 2013, 04:37:24 PM »

I'm still wondering when Dolan is going to start wearing his short skirt with pom-pom's in hand.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #5 on:** December 03, 2013, 07:45:00 PM »

Rush Limbaugh is a pill-popping Zionist so I wouldn't give him any credit especially in a Cathokic group. Anyways, the only and I mean only thing I like about Francis is his condemnation of capitalism. Economic liberalism is a Protestant idea doing much harm to the Church. These things are condemned by the Church so it is the only actual point where he is right. Why would we want jump in on attacking that. That is stupid. Really.

OHCA · « **Reply #6 on:** December 03, 2013, 08:52:53 PM »

Quote from: LaramieHirsch

Meh. Whatever. The Church deserves him. And Dolan.

The Church--the Bride of Christ--DESERVES no such heretical scoundrels. If you're going to be blogging to your audience of 2 or whatever it is these days, you need to connect your brain and your tongue or typing fingers or whatever and avoid making such blasphemous statements. The modernists and liberals within deserve any dung that can be heaped upon them. But to say that the Church, founded by the hand of Jesus Christ, which you insist conciliardom is, most certainly does not deserve these heretical pieces of dung.

I do believe you meant the right thing. But the literal way it was worded, and the fact that you fancy yourself a blogger, is why I make such a big deal out of it. I find it offensive that you blog--I think blogging about religion should be ideally left to clerics, or at least those with at least some minimal seminary/theological training. Otherwise, we're like a bunch of scattered private interpretation personal set of beliefs prots.

OHCA · « **Reply #7 on:** December 03, 2013, 09:13:41 PM »

Atheist Interviewer: Were you seduced by communism?

Frank: "Her materialism had no hold over me. But learning about it through a courageous and honest person was helpful. I realized a few things, an aspect of the social, which I then found in the social doctrine of the Church." (Emphasis added)

The last few [pre-Vatican II] Popes struggled to protect the Church from modernists, masons, and communists, largely as a common enemy. Then along comes Frank applauding the communism that he "found" in the Church!! If you notice, he was first intrigued with the communist social doctrine. And THEN "found" it in the Church. More accurately, worked to create it in the Church.

LaramieHirsch · « **Reply #8 on:** December 03, 2013, 09:41:51 PM »

Quote from: OHCA

I find it offensive that you blog...

And I am offended that you are offended.

You know, people always accuse me of trying to get attention here. It's hilarious. This is a thread about Rush Limbaugh criticizing the Holy Father. And you go off on a tangent like this. It is you who is drawing attention to me.

This is a forum. People contribute to discussion here. What? You post things and expect and hope no one notices you? No. You post so that others will read what you say. Heck, you could have just as easily said this as a private message. But you didn't.

Also, anyone can blog. It isn't a big deal. It's not like I own a newspaper or anything. Plus it's handy to have a "base of operations."

- - -

I will grant you one thing, though. You were right in that my wording was off. Of course the Church in and of itself does not deserve leadership such as this. Of course not.

It is the wicked generation of our time that deserves all of this.

I'd go back to correct it if possible, but you know how the edit feature is here.

Traditional Guy 20 · « **Reply #9 on:** December 03, 2013, 10:32:18 PM »

Quote from: Centroamerica

Rush Limbaugh is a pill-popping Zionist so I wouldn't give him any credit especially in a Cathokic group. Anyways, the only and I mean only thing I like about Francis is his condemnation of capitalism. Economic liberalism is a Protestant idea doing much harm to the Church. These things are condemned by the Church so it is the only actual point where he is right. Why would we want jump in on attacking that. That is stupid. Really.

I think we're having a utopian dream world if we think we can battle poverty or a war against hunger. No any way to stop these problems should be done in the nation itself.

poche · « **Reply #10 on:** December 03, 2013, 11:24:59 PM »

I think if we are going to have a discussion on the economy we should not forget to study what Pope Leo had to say on the matter in Rerum Novaum. He reafirmed the right to private property, but not to the detriment of teh society as a whole.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum_en.html

Traditional Guy 20 · « **Reply #11 on:** December 03, 2013, 11:35:37 PM »

Quote from: poche

I think if we are going to have a discussion on the economy we should not forget to study what Pope Leo had to say on the matter in Rerum Novaum. He reafirmed the right to private property, but not to the detriment of teh society as a whole.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum_en.html

We already have papal encyclicals on economics; but there is no need for an international solution for the world's problems i.e. world government.

poche · « **Reply #12 on:** December 04, 2013, 12:25:16 AM »

Quote from: Matto

Rush Limbaugh says Francis teaches “pure Marxism”

link

December 3, 2013

Rush Limbaugh

rushlimbaugh.com

RUSH: You know, the pope, Pope Francis — this is astounding — has issued an official papal proclamation, and it’s sad. It’s actually unbelievable. The pope has written, in part, about the utter evils of capitalism. And I have to tell you, I’ve got parts of it here I can share with you. It’s sad because this pope makes it very clear he doesn’t know what he’s talking about when it comes to capitalism and socialism and so forth. Wait ’til you hear it.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: I was doing show prep last night, usual routine, and I ran across this — I don’t even know what it’s called, the latest papal offering, statement from Pope Francis. Now, 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 where he came from and is not anything special, not aristocratic. If he wants to eschew the physical trappings of the Vatican, okay, cool, fine. But this that I came across last night 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. I want to share with you some of this stuff.

“Pope Francis attacked unfettered capitalism as ‘a new tyranny’ and beseeched global leaders to fight poverty and growing inequality, in a docuмent 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.’”

I gotta be very careful. 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. Unfettered capitalism? That doesn’t exist anywhere. Unfettered capitalism is a liberal socialist phrase to describe the United States. Unfettered, unregulated.

to read more click here: rushlimbaugh.com

Tags: Rush Limbaugh

The economic order in which we live has flaws. One of those flaws is that it favors the rich over the poor. For example: How many banks were saved during the economic collapse in compared to how many ordinary homeowners? How much fraud is there related to the forclosures? robosigning of affidavits etc...?
The pope is simply saying that there should be concern for the poor.

icterus · « **Reply #13 on:** December 04, 2013, 09:00:27 AM »

Quote

The economic order in which we live has flaws. One of those flaws is that it favors the rich over the poor. For example: How many banks were saved during the economic collapse in compared to how many ordinary homeowners? How much fraud is there related to the forclosures? robosigning of affidavits etc...?
The pope is simply saying that there should be concern for the poor.

I'd respectfully disagree. We as Catholic have a special insight, we know that sin will always corrupt any human institution to some degree. I think that this should give us special concern for any institution gaining too much power over any society.

Now unless one thinks that there is already a government/banking conspiracy and there is one monolithic entity controlling everything (I do not) then Francis' exhortation presents a theory:

That putting additional power into the hands of a central secular government to dictate what people do with their property will result in a more just society.

Limbaugh et al would be opposed:

Putting additional power into the hands of a central secular government to dictate what people do with their property will result in a less just society.

I'm sort of confused, if you are on the side of Pope Francis in this, Poche, why you would bring up central government actions (bailing out banks) as an example of 'what's wrong'.

I think you may way to re-think your position, to be sure which one you are in favor of and what examples you should use to support it.

Further, Francis appears to take a populist 'know nothing' approach to economics. Since no pure free market exists, particularly in the USA, and all aspects of banking include myriad government laws, codes, regulations, overseers, etc. - any item or action or result within the banking industry is subject to a debate: Is it an intrinsic flaw of banking, or is it the result of a government distortion?

This would be a real question. Pope Francis appears to treat it as a non-issue and simply place the blame on free market forces. This appears to be putting on his secular economist hat...last I checked he neither owned one of those (he already has a hat indicating a more important role) and wasn't qualified to wear one anyway.

poche · « **Reply #14 on:** December 04, 2013, 10:40:33 PM »

Quote from: Traditional Guy 20

Quote from: poche
I think if we are going to have a discussion on the economy we should not forget to study what Pope Leo had to say on the matter in Rerum Novaum. He reafirmed the right to private property, but not to the detriment of teh society as a whole.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum_en.html

We already have papal encyclicals on economics; but there is no need for an international solution for the world's problems i.e. world government.

That is what I said. And if we are going to start we shoyuld start with Rerum Novarum.