Rush Limbaugh: It's Sad How Wrong Pope Francis Is (Unless It's a Deliberate Mistranslation By Leftists) November 27, 2013
Let's quote some from it:
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.
Limbaugh is equivocating. Capitalism does neither mean money nor riches. It means a state of society where people already rich can arrange to get richer and people already poor can only arrange to get a little less poor. Or in other words, a state where employers are so few that hopes of chosing one's employer or getting self employed are slim, and where service providers are so few that consumers cannot hope to favour only the honest ones. I e where some are so rich in a certain capacity they can afford to abuse it.
So defining Capitalism, Communism is of course the ultimate Capitalism - as indeed it is.
The State on earth with most unbridled Capitalism is not US, it is Red China after its restructuring.
"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.'"
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.
Having tons of money or having had it is not the same thing as idolising it.
Folks, in recent weeks I have endeavored to try to make you understand how it is that people like modern-age Democrats look at small business and business at large. They do not, in the terms of small business, understand how fragile it is. Their view of business is that people who own them or run them cheat their customers, abuse their employees, hoard all the money, and have tons of it. They take it and keep it for themselves. They deny their employees a livable wage. They deny them health care. They deny them benefits. They produce products that kill and maim and sicken, or they produce products that destroy the planet, destroy the environment, or what have you.
I mean, it's a litany. This is their view and it is why they claim that they must take it over and control it, because it's inherently unfair that a select few capitalists rip everybody off. ...
I agree that small business is fragile. But the Pope (if such he be) was not attacking small business, as far as I saw, but unfettered Capitalism.
The kind of society where neither state regulations nor a balance between very many pretty small and pretty equal businessmen check the businessmen of that society from doing such things.
And the quote says nothing about taking over, it says something about rich needing to give up.
Ancient Roman Empire had pretty unfettered Slavery. This was gradually ended, not suddenly. It was ended whereever it remained Christian and did not go Muslim.
An Abraham Lincoln would perhaps have ended it suddenly. Or not, as he would not have needed to do so to save the Union.
A Makhnov would probably have failed to end it suddenly as much as Spartacus. A Trotski would not have ended it, he would have taken over the slaves and treated them worse, as the real Trotski did in Russia, under Lenin.
An Abraham Lincoln solution would have meant the State took over all slaves and then turned them free. A Makhnov solution would have been slaves themselves taking things over collectively.
The real solution was different and it DID involve rich people giving up what they had. Catholic priests persuaded slave owners that one way of getting right with God was to give your slaves freedom - as Christians are all of us the freedmen of Christ. Far from "fear of Hell keeping people in slavery" (except in the sense it kept slaves from dangerous ventures of the Makhnov and Spartacus type) it was fear of Hell and eagerness to get quicker out of Purgatory that made Slave owners give slaves freedom and land. Often enough as serfs, as enjoying the rights and duties of "coloni glebae adscripti". But that was certainly better than being a slave, even if Christianity - meaning a Church able and willing to excommunicate culprits - stopped slave owners (those still keeping their slaves) from actually separating family members from each other (unlike the worst parts of legislation in old Slave States just before Secession, which were Protestant meaning there was no real and commonly accepted Church authority).
Now, if you see the parallel between Slavery as Unbridled among Pagans and Slavery as regulated by the Church, you will perhaps see the point of Capitalism as unbridled or regulated too.
Manchester in XIX C and Red China today had and have unbridled Capitalism. US was once starting to get it, then you got Antitrust legislation. Then it is trying to come back and so on.
A real and open Monopoly for any business is dangerous to public freedoms, and especially those of the poorer people. A trust or certain kinds of combination where companies own each other as stockholders can in effect amount to a monopoly in practise. A socialist takeover would make the monopoly even more real and stifling.
Rip off their employees, rip off their customers, and that's how you have unequal incomes, and this vast gap between wealth and poverty. It's all because of capitalism. They claim that as socialists or reformers or progressives, that they are fair and compassionate, and they will make that gap between the wealthy and the poor narrower, and they will make life more equitable, and they will engage in equality of outcomes and so forth, and wherever they've tried, they've failed.
I agree Socialists have failed to remedy things. That does not mean their immediate diagnosis of the problem has always been wrong. It means their theory about ultimate causes and therefore about radical remedies was and is wrong. Karl Marx when diagnosing "basic problem" (as opposed to obvious symptoms) of Capitalism neglected to make any fuss about Usury. Perhaps he would have felt like throwing stones while sitting in a greenhouse.
Now, one form of Capitalism is Usury.
In the Middle Ages Usury was both more and less bridled than in our time.
As only Jews could engage in it without being excommunicated, it was more limited. Moses had allowed Jews to take interest from Canaanean neighbours. He had also said on behalf of God Deuteronomy 23  Thou shalt not lend to thy brother money to usury, nor corn, nor any other thing:  But to the stranger. To thy brother thou shalt lend that which he wanteth, without usury: that the Lord thy God may bless thee in all thy works in the land, which thou shalt go in to possess.
Comment from site:  To the stranger: This was a dispensation granted by God to his people, who being the Lord of all things, can give a right and title to one upon the goods of another. Otherwise the scripture everywhere condemns usury, as contrary to the law of God, and a crying sin. See Ex. 22. 25; Lev. 25. 36, 37; 2 Esd. 5. 7; Ps. 14. 5; Ezech. 18. 8, 13, etc.
Own comment: note that Edomites and Egyptians had already been enumerated as the brothers of Israelites. Further comment in Haydock Commentary for same verse states the same thing. And some more.
Christians could and usually did not take interest any more than become slave traders. In the Ninth Century you have Slave Traders despite bans on that evil business. In the 14th Century you have some Christians taking up the example of money Jews - for instance Lombards (what a fall from the time or at least example of Paul the Deacon, historian of his people, Peter the Lombard, theologian of the Sentences, his reputed brothers writing one of them Historia Scholastica and the other of them Decretum Gratiani - Biblical History and Canon Law).
But it was in another way less restricted. A man who had 100 coins of any money could if he was Jewish (or Lombard) lend them out at a rate of 60% per annum and next year have 160 coins in his pocket.
Today he cannot. He can only charge six percent.
He can have 100 gold dollars in his bank vault, but have a right to lend out one thousand dollars in loans. So, charging six percent means charging six dollars from each person to which he lends one hundred. And if he took them back in gold coins, at the end of the year he too would have 160 where a year before he had only had 100.
So, basically, the banker enjoys the same unfair advantage, but each of those bearing the unfair loss bears proportionally less of it. The banker is in that way more bearable than his Medieval ancestor or counterpart.*
Note that the Council of Vienne banned not only the Knights Templar as a sect apostate from CHristianity in their secret rites, but also the taking of usury and the defense of such as being licit.
The council of Lateran in 1515 decided for an exception. If a municipality wants to give loans for next to no interest to poor, so they need not pay 60% per annum to a usurer, the borrowers could be chargest a very moderate interest, intended to pay the modest salaries of the municipal loan granters. But the Council - or Pope Leo X presiding it, but being contradicted by noone - added "but how much more holy and righteous if half of their salary is paid by a municipal revenue like taxes or properties".
In the same paragraph the general ban was otherwise confirmed.
Later, certain lax Catholics tried a way to get around this ban by stating: "here is a contract of a loan without interest, it is licit, here is another contract of a loan where the paying back is dependent on the fortunes of the borrower, it is also licit, here is a third contract, in which we stipulate that the second contract will probably lead to eight percent increase and entitle to eight percent positive interest, but that this is not certain, while the no interest is certain, and this third contract cuts the difference in half meaning in practise four percent interest irrespective of the fortunes of the borrower, and since it is the middle between two licit contracts, it is itself also licit".
And a Pope answered basically that "no, it is not licit to make three or even two separate contracts about the same sum of money and each contract made must be licit in its own right".
That Pope was I think Sixtus V. But his ban was ignored largely. Meaning Capitalism became among Christian Catholics more ubridled than it had been. For of course Usury is a form of Capitalism.
I wrote this before checking. I did check and found some interesting stuff:
Actually not all advocates of Contractus Trinus were lax, cf: Catholic Encyclopedia on: Gregory of Valencia
He sought to have the practice of taking interest declared lawful on the basis of the so called contractus trinus and of a rental-purchase agreement which either party was free to terminate. (The latter arrangement had been devised and quite generally resorted to during the Middle Ages as a method of lending money without contravening the laws in regard to interest. It grew out of the earlier practice whereby the creditor acquired both possession and use of the property which secured the loan. By a later modification, the borrower retained possession and use, but ceded to the lender a real right in the property. Finally, the system here referred to was introduced, the creditor was entitled to an income from the property which, however, still belonged to the borrower; the lender purchased the rental. Originally such agreements were binding in perpetuity; but in course of time they were so framed that the parties might withdraw under mutually accepted conditions). He argued that contracts surrounded by such provisions were not contrary to natural law and were therefore permissible in all cases where no positive law forbade them. He also advocated these views as collaborator in the opinion which a theological commission, by order of Gregory XIII, elaborated in 1581. It was in connection with this matter that Gregory's superiors sent him to Rome, where his personal acquaintance with conditions in Germany would enable him to state all the more accurately the question at issue and its significance.
Funnily enough one Muslim has written about "contractum trinius" as behind the idea of Islamic Banking. He is probably not wrong on the basics, but he miswrote "contractus trinus" as "contractum trinius". And now the wikipedia article is found under the heading of Contractum trinius. Which is not the correct Latin form.
Islamic Banking isn't Islamic
by Tarek El Diwany
Original Summer 2000; updated June 2003
I did not remove the link from wikipedia, the comparison between contractus trinus (condemned by a Pope) and Islamic banking (condemned by pious Muslims) is indeed a good one. But I added:
Note: he miswrote contractus trinus (threefold contract) as contractum trinius (which does not mean anything), but that is no reason why wikipedia should follow him, rather than say Catholic Encyclopedia on the proper linguistic form.
Problem is that it was in a previous article correctly named contractus trinus that I had earlier found the reference to what Pope condemned it. It has been removed. I google again. Ah, here we have Thomas Storck:
Although a bull of Sixtus V in 1586 could be interpreted as condemning the contractus trinus, it was largely without effect.
Is Usury Still a Sin by Thomas Storck.
Yes, it was Sixtus V.
Back to Limbaugh.
He would presumably stamp Popes Sixtus V and even Leo X as Socialists, if anyone wanting to regulate Capitalism deserves that label from him.
Now, obviously the Church followed its own ban on Usury.
The beautiful Churches were built and are being kept in order, not by lending money and charging more, but partly by Agrarian incomes dedicated to the purpose, partly by taxation money, as Peter's Penny. Partly also by alms for pruposes.
These alms are indeed very well known. Popes Julius II and Leo X gave indulgences for alms to the building or rebuilding of St Peter's Basilica. From all over Europe, including Tetzel's Germany. The attachment of indulgences to alms of money was however abolished by the Council of Trent, not because it was an actual act of selling pardons, which is a simonitic sin and heresy, but because it had been misuderstood so (notably by Luther). Since then, alms are still given but usually just for the upkeep. Sweeping the floor is often done by volunteers. Repairing is done by alms. So is probably paying poor women who volunteer but whom the priest wants to pay anyway.
So, no, Limbaugh has no cause to call the Vatican hypocrite for denouncing unbridled Capitalism. It has for most of this time not allowed itself any direct part of the unbridled Capitalism known as Usury. Or taking Interest.
But has Limbaugh even got a moral compass? On the site where I got his reply to "Pope Francis" on this, a sidebar was showing his FB updates and one was an eulogy about Nelson Mandela. I will not polemise against all concerning mainly his virtues, but rather about a lopsided comparison made by Rush:
Most people who had been through what Mandela went through would have spent the rest of their life enraged and bitter and angry and would have tried to get even.
Limbaugh, what do you consider ANC was about? The problem with such a comparison should be obvious. These "most people" who would try to get even are people who are not succeeding in getting back what they lost even. Nelson Mandela while forgiving did so from a position of success. He did so from a position of power, of having defeated the system he hated. The Apartheid system. Another question is if he only destroyed unjust white supremacies or even just white securities for the white, for instance the Boers. In the latter case one can even doubt if he was all that forgiving.
I suspect some few people at least among those sharing Limbaugh's admiration for Nelson Mandela are in the know about me. They are keeping me back - or were till recently - for being the kind of "loser" who is spending his life in a futile quest or revenge. They may include people having listened to Mandela's words "if people can learn to hate, they can learn to love", and who have then thought I am one of the ones who needs to learn to love. Before they allow me any kind of rewards for my efforts. Well, such are the people who are teaching me to hate.
And they are not showing me a free market. If the market were free to me, someone would have the freedom to play the nicer ones of my compositions. Someone would have the freedom to print my essays - unless they consider these hateful. And someone would not be thinking that my hatred of usury is simply trying to get even with old school mates of which some might have become rich. I mean, the Spendrups were nice friends (what little I saw of them) and they are to the best of my knowledge still in the beer brewing business, not in the banking one. And unlike Carlsberg not buying up compteters's breweries and closing them. Even pretty nasty schoolmates (as I remember them) may well have gone into business that then as now I consider honest. And if someone went into taking interest, he might have been someone I was not trying to get even with. I have very much not been following up on my old schoolmates' carreers. And I would very much object to usury as much as to underpaying your workers in money or overcharging them in hours or fastness of work, or overcharging customers in prices or underpaying customers in quality or quantity of merchandise. And someone would see it, so if noone does or dares up to now, presumably the market is not free. It is not regulated against small writers either officially. It is rigged by some lousy intrigue. It may very well involve Jewish rabbis being friends with CHrsitian priests who hearing these Jewish rabbis accusing me of antisemitism and vengefulness (I suspected "Pope Francis" or Bergoglio for being one of the crew, since he is known for his friendships with Jews, I still suspect him of having been in that crew up to recently, like when he spoke up against resentment).
You see, I am not a believer in unlimited Capitalism, but in small business.
I think Limbaugh has a point. A free and open society will not be tricked into letting bad capitalists get away with underpaying or overcharging either employees or customers. The problem is that the fewer and bigger the companies are, the less open is the society.
I loved George W. Bush Jr. for the proposal of abolishing inheritance duty. Then I hated him when an association called Responsible Rich persuaded him not to. Inheritance duty is peanuts to inheritors in Coca Cola Company of Pennsylvania or Pepsi Cola Company or Apple, or Microsoft (do the Gates even have children of their own?), but it can make the difference between a small company surviving gallantly after death of owner or having to get a loan to keep business in family. It can make the difference between a small company survining within family thanks to getting in debt or getting out of family (and maybe even out of business) because a loan is refused. George W. Bush adored riches and listened to Responsible Rich who hypocritically protested it was no good being born with a silver spoon in ones mouth.
And that brings us to trickle down economy. The riches can trickle down better to the poorer if the rich have a habit of spending. A banker may own as much as Louis XVI. But if he is not in the habit of spending like Louis XVI, his riches are not trickling down. Those of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette were. The Revolution was made because of people who hated too much riches trickling down ultimately - and due to a mob that was manipulated by them.
This does not exonerate Bergoglio from all of my suspicions, but from some. I just recalculated the ascii code worth of gematria for BERGOGLIO, I found it was not 666 but 665 (in other words "not guilty" as far as that is concerned, but perhaps someone better at calculating should look it over: A - Z are 65 - 90, a - z are 97 - 122, or just add 32 to each capital letter's worth to get the lower case letter's worth, works as long as letters are without accents and for a few more, like Å=197 and å=229=197+32).** But it does charge Limbaugh with the clearly bad charge of being a bad thinker and a bad writer. A Protestant.
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
St Ambrose of Milan
and Vigil of Immaculate Conception
* But lending out more than you have in liquid assets only works as long as the bank's creditors and those enjoying its credits are not asking too many at a time to get their part in liquid assets, hence the lots of financial bubbles that make economy less safe today.
** I did update the link since it was actually 666 in my recalculation.
PS: Quoting one relevant paragraph from document (fancy Limbaugh did not think of it):
54. In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting. To sustain a lifestyle which excludes others, or to sustain enthusiasm for that selfish ideal, a globalization of indifference has developed. Almost without being aware of it, we end up being incapable of feeling compassion at the outcry of the poor, weeping for other people’s pain, and feeling a need to help them, as though all this were someone else’s responsibility and not our own. 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.
Evidently this is not what I meant by the trickle down economy of Louis XVI. From Marie Antoinette money was trickling down two ways: to a jeweller before each party, but also, once she sold her necklace after the party, and that usually to some Aristocratic lady (or her husband) eager for the honour, the money from the necklace went to the poor. Because that was her style.
Robespierre was not that style. Had he had their kind of wealth, he would have been a banker. As he was not a banker, and not a spender like the Royalty he usurped the powers of, he did not have their kind of wealth either.
56. While the earnings of a minority are growing exponentially, so too is the gap separating the majority from the prosperity enjoyed by those happy few. This imbalance is the result of ideologies which defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace and financial speculation. Consequently, they reject the right of states, charged with vigilance for the common good, to exercise any form of control. A new tyranny is thus born, invisible and often virtual, which unilaterally and relentlessly imposes its own laws and rules. Debt and the accumulation of interest also make it difficult for countries to realize the potential of their own economies and keep citizens from enjoying their real purchasing power. To all this we can add widespread corruption and self-serving tax evasion, which have taken on worldwide dimensions. The thirst for power and possessions knows no limits. In this system, which tends to devour everything which stands in the way of increased profits, whatever is fragile, like the environment, is defenseless before the interests of a deified market, which become the only rule.
We must not forget in this context that some taxes actually promote poverty insofar as they are taking away opportunities from people to become their own men. I mentioned inheritance duty, which cannot ruin Carlsberg or Tuborg or even Faxe, but which might on occasion have put or might be putting Spendrups in a necessity to borrow to pay it and thereby indebt themselves. And which might be ruining a brewery even smaller than theirs. Money taken in taxes is not only distributed for genuine causes of the Common Good, but can go to finance Psychiatry, Compulsory Education, Child Welfare Services where one task is deciding what children and youngsters to take away from parents, and since all these three factors can decourage people from making families, tax money also goes to pay contraceptions and abortions. Which in turn make those in productive ages fewer in comparison to the old. And which case therefore impoverishes the old. Not mentioning this but putting tax evasion down to always just selfishness, is a bit one-sided. A bit one-eyed./HGL