Rush Limbaugh Continues Standard Conservative Francis-Hating Tactics

Rush Limbaugh Continues Standard Conservative Francis-Hating Tactics July 2, 2014

It’s pretty simple. Take some MSM misreading of something Francis says–usually something a 10 year old could understand with a little effort–believe the MSM misreading, and then smite Francis hip and thigh for things he didn’t say and obviously did not mean. Rebecca Hamilton is right. The most *charitable* explanation is that Limbaugh is an idiot. The more realistic explanation is that nobody in his position is really so dumb as to believe the pope is a communist or thinks Jesus was a communist, so the more likely take is that he’s ginning up ratings with a little good old fashioned pope bashing.

What he is emphatically not doing is making the slightest effort to understand Francis or the Church’s teaching on the poor (a word he habitually pronounces “pewer” with a sneer).

The Standard Bearer of the Thing that Used to Be Conservatism, which has joined the pro-abort Left in a deepening hatred toward the Church and this pope.

"Whoever thought up the slur, that Mother Theresa was someone at odds with the Church ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."
"Free will to resist grace, available to all, and to reject good. God loves us ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Michaelus

    If it is any consolation Limbaugh has been ranting about small government and free markets for 20 years during which the Government has grown exponentially and the economy has become completely regulated. If he starts complaining about the Pope we will probably become a new Papal estate by 2016.

  • Adam

    Say what you wish about Rush, he, as a non-Catholic, shares more in common to Pope Frances than Catholics in name only, like Pelosi.

    • Willard

      Uh huh…you think a thrice divorced drug addict cheerleader for the Iraq war and defender of unfettered capitalism has more in common with the Pope than Nancy Pelosi? The reality is that neither of them have almost anything in common with His Holiness.

      • Adam

        I’ve never heard him say he was an advocate of “unfettered capitalism”, whatever that means. And yes, Limbaugh is a sinner. And the Pope admitted he was a thief. The point is you confess it, seek penance and try your hardest never to do it again. It’s that simple.

        If you mean free markets, yes, he supports them, as do I and as does Pope Francis. If you mean limited government, that’s in our founding documents.

        In my estimation, increased appropriation of power by the federal government equates to fewer and less free associations, alternative voices of moral authority. Just look to Europe to see that central government largess harms civic institutions by subordinating them to the State. The Church either has less influence or compromises on core dogmas to retain some influence. Who is closer to the European model: Limbaugh or Pelosi?

        • Willard

          I don’t think we are going to agree. I will just say that I think both Limbaugh and Pelosi could learn a lot from Pope Francis.

          • Adam

            Just as a matter of basic statistics, it is highly improbable that Limbaugh and Pelosi are equally dissimilar to Pope Francis since they each hold deeply opposing philosophies about the source of natural rights. My point is that, if you were to combine the viewpoints of Limbaugh and Pelosi and place the aggregate for each along a spectrum of distance to the Father’s viewpoints on the role of the State, Limbaugh is closer. I’m not saying he’s anywhere close to Limbaugh on faithful and humble obedience to God, theological studies, etc. I’m just saying he is closer on political theory.

            • Dan C

              Limbaugh claims a different source for natural rights until a Republican is President. Then, well, he and Grover Norquist applaud extensive expansion of the military/intelligence/industrial aspects of the government.

            • Willard

              Now on that I totally disagree. Did you miss Mark’s previous post detailing all of the pre and post Vatican II popes that spoke out so forcefully against capitalism?

              • Adam

                Well if Mark said it, then…. No, I guess I missed that. And for every one of those statements (which were of course a response, in part, to the circumstances that existed at the time they were made), I’m sure I could find one that praised the importance of private property to enable individuals to freely exercise their religious beliefs without fear of government coercion. Good grief, we just had a decision from the USSC on this very principle two days ago! If everything you own belongs to the State, then you become a creature of the State, and principled objections are minor obstacles to the will of the political classes. This is such an obvious fact and the Hobby Lobby Decision should have been a slam dunk for religious liberty, but it squeaked by with 4 dissents and a Kennedy concurrence trying to make peace with the pro-choice crowd. How on earth can you say that Pelosi is closer to Pope Frances when she would have forced Hobby Lobby’s owners purchase contraceptives for employees with no religious accommodation? I’m sorry, but I don’t get your point and Mark Shea and I disagree, then I’d like to hear his response.

                • Willard

                  I agree with the Hobby Lobby decision as well but that has nothing to do with the Papacy’s long opposition to capitalism. Please read Mark’s post ”
                  Docility vs. Minimum Daily Adult Requirement Thinking Re: Mammon”

                • Alma Peregrina

                  “I’m sure I could find one that praised the importance of private property to enable individuals to freely exercise their religious beliefs without fear of government coercion.”

                  And I’m pretty much sure you could.

                  However, the twist is this:

                  “capitalism” in Willard’s comment

                  is NOT necessarily the same as

                  “the importance of private property to enable individuals to freely exercise their religious beliefs without fear of government coercion” in your comment.

                  • Adam

                    I think we have a different understanding of the economic system. What you see in the EU and USA is not capitalism. It is a mixed system of social welfare and heavily regulated industry. Healthcare, education retirement and housing are basically government run.

                    • Alma Peregrina

                      Yeah… it never is capitalism.

                      Roll eyes.

                      It’s so impressive then, if what we have in the EU is not capitalism, why every single right wing party (except the nationalists) and laissez-faire market pundit keeps applauding the economic decisions that the EU imposes on its country members.

                      They mustn’t be really, really, real capitalists after all.
                      Just like comunists today say that Stalin was not really, really, real communism.

                    • Adam

                      If a corporation can induce the government to offer it special favors at the expense of competitors, wouldn’t you praise the leadership?

                      If you sincerely believe that the US economy is not already the object of heavy litigation, regulation and taxation, then we have nothing to talk about because we don’t agree on fundamental premises.

                    • Alma Peregrina

                      We don’t agree on fundamental premises. At all.

                    • Adam

                      It’s like you are the main character in Momento.

        • Alma Peregrina

          “Who is closer to the European model: Limbaugh or Pelosi?”

          How about neither?

          • Adam

            Nonsense. Once you contrast natural law and positive law and the growth of the latter at the expense of the former, you should see my point. From whence is the source of Pelosi’s claim to rights for women? The rights bestowed by the State or God?

            • Alma Peregrina

              As an European, I must say you’re the one speaking nonsense.

              In Europe we have a Super-State (the European Union) imposing its will on national institutions, harming them and subordinating them.

              And what’s the ideological will that this Super-State is imposing?

              It’s twofold: Pelosi’s sexual hedonism and Limbaugh’s economic liberalism.

              Oh, and both pretty much rely on positive law rather than that hindrance of natural law. I can’t speak for Limbaugh (nor Pelosi) since I’m not an american, but I can speak for the ideologies they both believe in. They’re man-made doctrines completely contrary to the Church.

    • Dave G.

      He’s not Catholic. Neither is Jon Stewart. Colbert is. Others like O’Reilly and Hannity and Matthews are. Bill Maher is not religious at all. And you know what? They’re all part of the larger problem: the decay of our modern debate. Our part of the problem is when we laud one and damn another. Personally, I wish they’d all rent space on an ocean liner and take a fourteen year trip getting to know each other and giving our ears a break. Who knows? Maybe they’d come back and be able to put some of their talents and abilities to good use.

      • Adam

        I’ve give up classifying people by self-characterizations, which are often vacuous and self serving. I just people by their actions, not the labels. I personally call myself a Roman Catholic and I try to act as such by daily sacrifices for our Lord. However, I share very little in common with other people in my community who call themselves Catholic. We have 5 children and home school. I get from New England Catholics as much sneering, eye-rolling, condescending remarks about our choice to raise children as I do from non-catholics. Even our former priest made an knee-jerk offensive remark about “having our hands full”. Sadly, it has caused me to question what solidarity we as Catholics share any more. I often find that our family simply does not share the same beliefs, values, tastes or experiences as others with whom we see at mass.

      • Tami Gregory

        Nah, in 14 days, “they” would be tossed overboard.

  • Adolfo

    I expect it from Rush. From Barbara Nicolosi? Very surprised. She seems to go out of her way to misunderstand Pope Francis at every opportunity these days.

    • Dan C

      Barbara is a culture warrior who invested a huge effort in burying the parts of Catholicism she dislike and tried to pretend CST encyclicals did not exist.

  • annmarie

    Think Rush respects the Church and would not be surprised re conversion. But don’t expect him to interpret our Pope. Even good Catholics are having trouble doing that.

    • Dan C

      Because you would be accustomed to only hearing the side of Catholicism that you like. Francis is saying all those things that PP by Paul VI said. Or JP2 said. Or precious Benedict said. And now he is saying them so you can understand them. And CNN understands them- actually Larry Kudlow so understands them that he freaked out and called Sirico.

      I await the minute they borrow Zuhldorf’s (and the American Catholic and Rich Leonardi’s) charitable treatment of those Catholics with whom they disagree- referring to “the biologic solution.” Wait and you will see this referred to for Francis.

      • Willard

        I hadn’t heard of that about Kudlow and Sirico. It’s really sad too because the Popes aren’t some kind of economic radical leftists. They basically teach a free market/private property based economy with state intervention to protect the common good. Kinda of like pre-Reagan.

        • Dan C

          Agreed. I think they are closer to European social democrats. PP, which gets harsh assessments and is highly demeaned by the right, was written by the same pope that wrote HV. JP 2 is insistent that capitalism, the system that won, is not blessed by the Church either and has grave deficiencies.

          • IRVCath

            I would say closer to classic Christian Democracy, but that’s a quibble. In any case earlier Popes would have simply condemned much of what passes for the right wing in America as simply so many dangerous liberals, in the sense condemned in the Syllabus.

      • Dave G.

        “Because you would be accustomed to only hearing the side of Catholicism that you like. ”

        Who’s you?

        • Tami Gregory

          Apparently anyone who doesn’t think Francis is completely clear in his communications.

  • HauteJuju

    Pope Francis needs to do a better job, or his office needs to do better job, communicating to the wider audience, the world. is he purposely being ambiguous? I don’t remember this problem with John Paul II or Benedict .

    Pope Francis can’t afford to need apologists explained to us unwashed masses that he doesn’t admire Communism.

    • Dan C

      Nope. He doesn’t need to. This is standard Catholic fare. You are just accustomed to having your particular side of Catholicism tune out the unfriendly parts. It’s getting harder now that CNN is broadcasting all the nasty bits that used to be buried in some deep encyclical.

    • capaxdei

      To judge Pope Francis an admirer of Communism has nothing to do with being unwashed and a great deal to do with being an idiot — or, as I judge to be the case with Rush Limbaugh, a sophist who doesn’t really care what the truth is.

      Don’t blame Pope Francis for the existence of idiots and sophists. Even the ever-clear Pope Benedict XVI was too ambiguous for George “Red Pen” Weigel.

    • Andy

      Pope Francis lays it out very clearly – leaves little room of doubt – he speaks in plain language, not the professorial language of Benedict or St. JPII. This cause discomfort because ti is hard to ignore or modify to meet one’s own meanings. He is doing what many people say should be done – preaching the Gospel and speaking to morals, and is not placing it in pieces of writing that can be easily ignored. He has said nothing new

    • Jared Clark

      Benedict: “Contraception is evil, but a person using contraception to prevent a disease shows some consideration for others. This consideration may lead the person to Christ.”


      Whenever the media sees a chance to lie about the Pope, they will. Historically, the easy lie has been against the Pope (ie. “Pope protects pedophiles”), but with Francis, they tried to hijack him as much as possible. And a good portion of Catholics fell for it and blamed His Holiness because crooks lied about him. Presumably, you also give our Lord and Savior a hard time whenever people misquote “judge not”.

      • Marthe Lépine

        Seems to me they may not be actually “lying”. They are rushing to find a catchy headline to get ratings (or sell newspapers) and, since they have no clue about what they, or the Pope, are actually talking about, they write silly articles under these headlines, that are obviously biased because they go through the filter of the writers’ preconceived (and misinformed) notions.

        • capaxdei

          Harry G. Frankfurt wrote a well-known essay in which he distinguishes between lying, by which the liar tries to conceal the truth, and BSing, by which the BSer is altogether indifferent to the truth of his words. (So the old “‘Hello, he lied.” remains an oxymoron, but “‘Hello,’ he BSed” is possible.)

    • Alma Peregrina

      ” I don’t remember this problem with John Paul II or Benedict .
      Pope Francis can’t afford to need apologists explained to us unwashed masses that he doesn’t admire Communism.”

      As an apologist in the times of Benedict, I must say you don’t have a clue. There were so many mediatic misunderstandings in the time of Benedict that I was completely overwhelmed at times to respond to every single criticism.

      The problem is that you would gladly be an apologist for Benedict, but you’re not willing to do the same with Francis. Why? Because you THINK they are ideologically diferent.

  • Andy

    To expect a paid mouth to say anything useful or not driven by ratings is silly. Rush, Jones, Matthews, O’Rielly and so on say anything to drive up their ratings. I try to avoid the “pundit” class and the “talk show” class at all costs, to the extent of listening to NASCAR on the radio when I need noise for background – mowing the lawn sort of background noise no offense to NASCAR, but on the radio it is boring as all hell).
    I have yet to hear anything that vaguely resembles coherent and useful thoughts from any of the paid mouths. I expect Stewart and Colbert to be over the top and satirical, and they rarely fail to live up to that, but they are doing a comedy bit – maybe if we looked at the rest of the paid mouths as comedians we would all be better off.

    • Dave G.

      The problem is that Colbert and Stewart are viewed, by a sizable part of the viewing population, as pundits. But pundits without accountability (because they can always play the ‘just comedians’ card). Maher does the same thing. It’s the latest development in the downward spiral of discourse. It began when journalism began to be about ratings over information. Then you had the rise of the Daytime Talk Shows (Donahue and the like). In answer to that, you had talk radio. Meanwhile Cable News emerged, and soon stations dedicated to this or that view emerged (while mainstream journalism began to show its own biases more openly). And now we have the latest: comedian pundits who can escape scrutiny because they are only comedians, when everyone can tell they are more. Personally, as I said below, I wish the whole bunch would go away.

      • Andy

        I agree – I wish they would all find real work and contribute to society instead of leeching – my differentiation between Colbert and Stewart and the rest is they don’t pretend to be pundits. I agree the public sees them this way, which speaks more to our lack of discernment then the two in question.

        • Dave G.

          I think at this point they’re more pundit than comedian. Though when the heat is turned on they duck behind “we’re just silly comedians”.

      • Hezekiah Garrett

        Someone has a crush on Colbert!

        I did the same in grade school. No matter who was being discussed, I would seize on any pretext to tell everyone how gross and mean and smelly Saro Jane Hinkey was.

      • chezami

        No. The problem is that Limbaugh and the biggest names at FOX are viewed pundits when they are increasingly unintentional comedians.

        • Andy

          Well said

        • Dave G.

          Yeah, they are. The pundits are becoming comedians (though unintentionally) and the comedians are becoming pundits (apparently quite intentionally). And then there are professional journalists.

      • Tami Gregory

        Exactly right.

      • wineinthewater

        Colbert and Stewart are court jesters and make perfect sense as jesters. The problem is that our pundits look like clowns, making it easy to mistake jesters for pundits.

        • Dave G.

          No. They’re pundits. But in the post-modern sense, without the accountability. It fits with the way of today. That wink and nod. That ‘oh, we’re not pundits, we’re just crazy comedians (wink, wink).’ And in the classic way of today, we refer to them as such, even though deep down, we know better. Of course comedians have long commented on the times, that’s what makes them valuable. But Colbert and Stewart are clearly on the progressive payroll, no questions. Unlike those celebrated jesters, they are clearly there to advance the cause and pander to the right power players. That folks deny that, again, see ‘the beauty of the post-modern relativity of today’. BTW, I thought of this when we watched Jeopardy the other night and one of the clues was Colbert, described in the answer as a ‘well known pundit’. One of many times he and Stewart have been referred to as such. And that’s true.

          • chezami

            It’s amazing how much energy conservatives spend making this complaint about these guys. Like it accomplishes or proves something.

            • Dave G.

              Of course. Because it’s a fair and obvious complaint, just like those who point out that FOX often fails its own “Fair and Balanced” standard. Some are just being consistent when it’s pointed out that the Comedy Central pundits are no different than the rest of the noise that passes for debate nowadays.

              • Squiboda

                You’re going to have a hard time with this. Mark despises Rush while he thinks Stewart and Colbert are worth posting whenever they have a thought he likes. Much like how he thinks police officers are goons hired by our nascent police state while members of the military are heroes.

          • wineinthewater

            I think we are in agreement. Pundits have become clowns, which has turned court jesters into pundits.

  • Mark S. (not for Shea)

    It’s easy to mistake the showmen and the clowns for journalists these days because there are so few true journalists left.

  • KM

    Simple solution: Turn off Rush and all talk radio and TV pundits. Start listening to the Pope.

    I’m reminded of 1 Kings 19:11-12 where Elijah heard the “still small voice” of God in the quiet, and not in the wind, earthquake, or fire.

    “…And, behold, Jehovah passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before Jehovah; but Jehovah was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but Jehovah was not in the earthquake: and after the earthquake a fire; but Jehovah was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice.”

    • Dave G.

      A nice suggestion. I listen and watch just to give them a chance. As long as I have an opinion, it should be an informed one. I’m always reminded of the time Dave Letterman went after Bill O’Reilly because of the O’Reilly Factor. O’Reilly asked him if he had ever watched the show. At that point, Letterman hesitated then admitted he hadn’t. It was uncomfortably humorous to say the least. I think if folks would stop referencing them, I’d feel better about just ignoring them altogether. But as long as they are references, I keep feeling I should pay attention to as much of the picture as I can.

  • jaybird1951

    I would recommend Michael Medved to all those conservative and moderate in their politics but unhappy with Limbaugh et al. Medved is very intelligent and fair in his radio presentations.

  • D. Burnt Beans

    I don’t think people are taking the time necessary to understand the man.

    • Jared Clark

      Yeah…pretty sure that quote came from an interview where the journalist didn’t take notes or record the interview. Not exactly the best source

      • Burnt Beans

        Turns out Voris is a fraud too who likes to take things out of context.
        There’s a website that tells all.
        A guy who has that much of an issue with gay people ain’t all right. Definitely compensating for somethin’

        • Jared Clark

          You may have replied to the wrong comment. We weren’t talking about Voris

  • Elmwood

    the GOP still represents the legacy of protestant america which includes an inherent paranoia about the Holy Father and the king of england taking away their guns. It’s not surprising then when “conservatives” explicitly promote anti-catholicism just like it isn’t surprising when “progressives” do the same.

    Catholics need consistent discernment to see where ideologies like the Tea Party, Libertarianism or Enviromentalism conflict with common sense and our faith.