Limbaugh calls the pope a Marxist

www.nydailynews.com...

If Pope Francis is Marxist he should act like one.
The Vatican and all its possessions around the world are worth trillions of dollars. That money could go a long way in alleviating poverty in the world. Why not turn some of that real estate gold mine into cash? Much of church property is located in prime locations and some of it is sitting empty and unused.

The Vatican holds or controls untold priceless artifacts, ancient books and manuscripts that are worth billions. Why is that hoard being kept in warehouses when it could be turned into currency and given to the poor?

The Catholic Church, from its heyday (Holy Roman Empire), has amassed huge amounts of priceless Renaissance paintings, statues, and frescoes that are the envy of the museum community. With one swoop, the Catholic Church could end poverty in the world by simply converting church assets into cash. That cash would easily feed and clothed the poor people of the world.

Ordained priests take an oath of poverty. One only needs to visit the Vatican, or any Catholic establishment to know that is not the case, clergy are anything but poor.

The church should go back to its roots and stop going against original doctrine, which condemns being in bed with money. The Catholic Church is awash in assets, resources and cash.

Pope Francis, do as Jesus instructed, share the enormous wealth the church sits on, give it to the poor.

Why are we listening to Limbaugh?

reply to post by sleeper

With one swoop, the Catholic Church could end poverty in the world by simply converting church assets into cash. That cash would easily feed and clothed the poor people of the world.

Are you really that naive?

Historian Peter Watson is a harsh critic of the Roman Catholic church, and has suggested that the Vatican sell off all of its art to private collectors. Here's his estimate of what that would raise:

Watson reckons the Vatican could get $17 billion for its art treasures. Good copies could be substituted, he says, or gaps could be left on the walls to emphasise the sacrifice.

And how far does he think even such a sum as $17 billion would go in ridding the world of poverty? It would be a drop in the ocean; and once it had soaked into the desert, like water from a leaking tanker in the Sahara, it would be gone forever, leaving bare walls and a basilica without Michaelangelo’s Pietà: a simpler but a less spiritually powerful place. And surely, the idea of those great religious works hanging in the houses of rich men for their private amusement is deeply unattractive. (Source)

In 2010, the world's governments gave $120 billion in foreign aid (Source) -- that didn't end poverty, why would you think that $17 billion would?

reply to post by sleeper


Might as well ask any museum to relenquish its treasures too. Those treasures are preserved for a reason and its not so they can be sold at some Vegas pawn shop when we run short of cash.

reply to post by sleeper


It's a vow of personal poverty. The Pope doesn't own any of it. He has no worldly possessions. He doesn't even own his underwear.

adjensen
reply to post by sleeper

 

With one swoop, the Catholic Church could end poverty in the world by simply converting church assets into cash. That cash would easily feed and clothed the poor people of the world.

Are you really that naive?

Yes, I am naïve, I was neglected as a child, have a problem with that?

Historian Peter Watson is a harsh critic of the Roman Catholic church, and has suggested that the Vatican sell off all of its art to private collectors. Here's his estimate of what that would raise:

Watson reckons the Vatican could get $17 billion for its art treasures. Good copies could be substituted, he says, or gaps could be left on the walls to emphasise the sacrifice.

And how far does he think even such a sum as $17 billion would go in ridding the world of poverty? It would be a drop in the ocean; and once it had soaked into the desert, like water from a leaking tanker in the Sahara, it would be gone forever, leaving bare walls and a basilica without Michaelangelo’s Pietà: a simpler but a less spiritually powerful place. And surely, the idea of those great religious works hanging in the houses of rich men for their private amusement is deeply unattractive. (Source)

In 2010, the world's governments gave $120 billion in foreign aid (Source) -- that didn't end poverty, why would you think that $17 billion would?

Now who is naïve, 17 billion is loose change at the Vatican. The Vatican sits on trove worth trillions if it were put on the open market. No one could afford to buy some of the valuables from the renaissance masters owned by the Vatican. The thousands of cathedrals alone are worth more than most countries.

It is naïve to think that the Vatican will follow its own doctrine and rid itself of the demon wealth it so cherishes and depends on. Nevertheless, the Vatican should lead by example and cash out of the money changers habit that they have wholeheartedly embraced, a practice that Jesus so despised when he overturned the tables of the money changers, the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Jesus said, it you have two cloaks, give one to the poor. He didn't say collect and hoard as many cloaks as you can get your hands on. The Vatican has a bunch of cloaks, enough to end poverty as we know it.

What Limbaugh was likely drawing on was this - the idea that Pope Francis, as a Latin American bishop, was likely steeped in and draws heavily from Liberation Theology which is very prevalent in the Latin American Catholic church and draws heavily from Marx.

Most who are at all familiar with Liberation Theology may know that it draws upon the ideas of Karl Marx, but Gutiérrez was selective in his use of Marx. He incorporated ideas regarding class struggle, private ownership of the means of production, and critiques of capitalism, but he rejected Marx’s ideas about materialism, economic determinism, and of course atheism.

From what I read of the Pope's writing/speech, and I will admit that I skimmed through it at best because I was rushed for time, it looked like a take on liberation theology.

Within Gutiérrez’s theological system, liberation and salvation become the same thing. The first step toward salvation is the transformation of society: the poor must be freed from economic, political, and social oppression. This will involve both struggle and conflict, but Gutiérrez does not shy away from it. Such a willingness to countenance violent actions is one of the reasons why Gutiérrez’s ideas have not always been warmly received by Catholic leaders in the Vatican.

The first step in liberation theology is not spiritual at all, but involves a pretty violent overthrow of any system that gets in the way of imposing the new world order as envisioned by Marx - the classless society. In this case, the Pope is also calling for a new world religion in a sense, too. One world religion maybe?

This would be why Limbaugh would have called what the Pope wrote Marxist because it has its roots in Marxist thought. I remember this was one of the concerns when they were selecting the new Pope ... that a Latin American Pope would be a Liberation Theologist, and when Francis was selected, we were assured very quickly that he was not one such. This paper seems to confirm what was feared, however, and a socialist, equal society must always be controlled ruthlessly by a small group at the top who get the most and best of everything while they ground everyone else under their boots.

AutumnWitch657
reply to post by sleeper

 

Might as well ask any museum to relenquish its treasures too. Those treasures are preserved for a reason and its not so they can be sold at some Vegas pawn shop when we run short of cash.

Museums are private enterprises, the Vatican is based on charity, built on the doctrine of living simple lives bordering on poverty. Christian scripture is clear when it states the pursuit of treasure is unholy and the pursuit of piety holy. Sell whatever treasure you have and feed the poor with that treasure, that is what Christianity is about. The Vatican should follow its own tenets, they should be the example and sell their immense treasure and feed the poor.

reply to post by sleeper

Now who is naïve, 17 billion is loose change at the Vatican. The Vatican sits on trove worth trillions if it were put on the open market. No one could afford to buy some of the valuables from the renaissance masters owned by the Vatican. The thousands of cathedrals alone are worth more than most countries.

The vast majority of assets held by the Roman Catholic church, or any church, for that matter, is real estate -- churches and cemeteries, which cannot be sold to raise money. I provided you with a source, a critic of the church, who says that they could raise $17 billion if they sold off all of their artwork. Now, where do you come up with them having trillions in liquid assets? Do you have a credible source for that, or did you just pull it out of a hat so that you'd have something to complain about?

AutumnWitch657
reply to post by sleeper

 

It's a vow of personal poverty. The Pope doesn't own any of it. He has no worldly possessions. He doesn't even own his underwear.

The pope doesn't own the Vatican, the palace that would make all kings blush with envy. The pope, and the army of thousands of pontiffs don't own the limos and the planes and the fancy living conditions they have and enjoy.

I own my underwear, and my house and car. I have to pay taxes on my house and car if I want to keep owing them, upkeep on my house and car cost me plenty.

I don't think I would mind having stuff and not owning it. Owning stuff is a hassle.

adjensen
reply to post by sleeper

 

Now who is naïve, 17 billion is loose change at the Vatican. The Vatican sits on trove worth trillions if it were put on the open market. No one could afford to buy some of the valuables from the renaissance masters owned by the Vatican. The thousands of cathedrals alone are worth more than most countries.

The vast majority of assets held by the Roman Catholic church, or any church, for that matter, is real estate -- churches and cemeteries, which cannot be sold to raise money. I provided you with a source, a critic of the church, who says that they could raise $17 billion if they sold off all of their artwork. Now, where do you come up with them having trillions in liquid assets? Do you have a credible source for that, or did you just pull it out of a hat so that you'd have something to complain about?

adjensen
reply to post by sleeper

 

Now who is naïve, 17 billion is loose change at the Vatican. The Vatican sits on trove worth trillions if it were put on the open market. No one could afford to buy some of the valuables from the renaissance masters owned by the Vatican. The thousands of cathedrals alone are worth more than most countries.

The vast majority of assets held by the Roman Catholic church, or any church, for that matter, is real estate -- churches and cemeteries, which cannot be sold to raise money. I provided you with a source, a critic of the church, who says that they could raise $17 billion if they sold off all of their artwork. Now, where do you come up with them having trillions in liquid assets? Do you have a credible source for that, or did you just pull it out of a hat so that you'd have something to complain about?

I have visited Europe and was blown away with the immense riches inside each fabulous church. There were so many of these treasures that I could only visit a small fraction of them in the two or three towns that I went to. I paid to go inside and it was well worth the price. Each church is a fantastic museum of artifacts from hundreds of years ago. I visited many museums, and there was no comparison, the museums had a few old relicts, but cost as much as going into the churches.

The Vatican, well, most of it is off-limits. No one will ever know the full extent of what is inside that place, but only the naïve would believe its worth doesn't surpass the Midas touch.

reply to post by sleeper


So, the answer is no, you have no credible source of information that points to trillions of dollars in liquid assets. You have anecdotal evidence that you personally saw wealth in churches, but unless you are an insurance or auction appraiser, took an accurate inventory, and you are aware of a burgeoning private market in religious statues and paintings, I think I'll take the word of Watson, who holds a shred of credibility, over you.

The world's governments spend ten times the value of Vatican assets, each year, on aid, and they barely put a dent in world poverty. It is ludicrous to claim that the Vatican, on its own, can sell off its paintings, Eucharist chalices and statues and end world poverty.

ketsuko
What Limbaugh was likely drawing on was this - the idea that Pope Francis, as a Latin American bishop, was likely steeped in and draws heavily from Liberation Theology which is very prevalent in the Latin American Catholic church and draws heavily from Marx.

Most who are at all familiar with Liberation Theology may know that it draws upon the ideas of Karl Marx, but Gutiérrez was selective in his use of Marx. He incorporated ideas regarding class struggle, private ownership of the means of production, and critiques of capitalism, but he rejected Marx’s ideas about materialism, economic determinism, and of course atheism.

From what I read of the Pope's writing/speech, and I will admit that I skimmed through it at best because I was rushed for time, it looked like a take on liberation theology.

Within Gutiérrez’s theological system, liberation and salvation become the same thing. The first step toward salvation is the transformation of society: the poor must be freed from economic, political, and social oppression. This will involve both struggle and conflict, but Gutiérrez does not shy away from it. Such a willingness to countenance violent actions is one of the reasons why Gutiérrez’s ideas have not always been warmly received by Catholic leaders in the Vatican.

The first step in liberation theology is not spiritual at all, but involves a pretty violent overthrow of any system that gets in the way of imposing the new world order as envisioned by Marx - the classless society. In this case, the Pope is also calling for a new world religion in a sense, too. One world religion maybe?

This would be why Limbaugh would have called what the Pope wrote Marxist because it has its roots in Marxist thought. I remember this was one of the concerns when they were selecting the new Pope ... that a Latin American Pope would be a Liberation Theologist, and when Francis was selected, we were assured very quickly that he was not one such. This paper seems to confirm what was feared, however, and a socialist, equal society must always be controlled ruthlessly by a small group at the top who get the most and best of everything while they ground everyone else under their boots.

edit on 3-12-2013 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)

I think the point is not political beliefs, whether the pope is Marxist or only leaning in that direction.
The fact is that the pope presides over an institution that has mind boggling wealth, while preaching that wealth is bad and should be given over to the poor by those that have it. Who am I to argue with that concept. In fact I agree, and I think the church should divest itself from the hordes of treasure it sits on and give it to the poor. Jesus never told his followers to hoard riches for a rainy day, he said give to those in need now.

reply to post by sleeper

I own my underwear, and my house and car. I have to pay taxes on my house and car if I want to keep owing them, upkeep on my house and car cost me plenty.

Why not practice what you preach?

Sell that underwear, that house, and that car, and give the money to the poor. With the money that you'd save from taxes, and upkeep expenses, you could even continue giving to those that have far less. That may not be much, but it would certainly be much more productive than, just, bitching about what the Catholic Church owns.

See ya,
Milt

adjensen
reply to post by sleeper

 

With one swoop, the Catholic Church could end poverty in the world by simply converting church assets into cash. That cash would easily feed and clothed the poor people of the world.

Are you really that naive?

Historian Peter Watson is a harsh critic of the Roman Catholic church, and has suggested that the Vatican sell off all of its art to private collectors. Here's his estimate of what that would raise:

Watson reckons the Vatican could get $17 billion for its art treasures. Good copies could be substituted, he says, or gaps could be left on the walls to emphasise the sacrifice.

And how far does he think even such a sum as $17 billion would go in ridding the world of poverty? It would be a drop in the ocean; and once it had soaked into the desert, like water from a leaking tanker in the Sahara, it would be gone forever, leaving bare walls and a basilica without Michaelangelo’s Pietà: a simpler but a less spiritually powerful place. And surely, the idea of those great religious works hanging in the houses of rich men for their private amusement is deeply unattractive. (Source)

In 2010, the world's governments gave $120 billion in foreign aid (Source) -- that didn't end poverty, why would you think that $17 billion would?

Its not about how much it would help.

Its about what the founder of that Religion said.

Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

As to what Rush said and the OP,

Jesus was the biggest left wing liberal as you can get, Communist, socialist, Marxist or what ever the BUZZ word Right wing (most often supposed christian) Republicans like to use to degrade Redistribution of wealth.

reply to post by benrl


Yes and no.

Left wing liberalism is forced redistribution. Jesus wanted it done voluntarily. There is a big difference.

A truly Christian world would look very much like a socialist utopia in a lot of ways with one very big difference - there would be no overwhelming, all-controlling state needed to enforce it all. Another big difference is that all those people who sit there doing nothing to help themselves would also be out working even if they were unable to produce enough. There neighbors who had more would gladly give to make up the difference. And no one would feel any envy or spite for who had more or less or anything else.

What I described above is simply not possible with human nature being what it is. And trying to force it through the law is not the type of world that Christ wanted because then it's not voluntary and thus not Christian. There is no compulsion in faith.

adjensen
reply to post by sleeper

 

So, the answer is no, you have no credible source of information that points to trillions of dollars in liquid assets. You have anecdotal evidence that you personally saw wealth in churches, but unless you are an insurance or auction appraiser, took an accurate inventory, and you are aware of a burgeoning private market in religious statues and paintings, I think I'll take the word of Watson, who holds a shred of credibility, over you.

The world's governments spend ten times the value of Vatican assets, each year, on aid, and they barely put a dent in world poverty. It is ludicrous to claim that the Vatican, on its own, can sell off its paintings, Eucharist chalices and statues and end world poverty.

You can believe whatever you want but a little googling will tell a far different story about the wealth of the Vatican. Nevertheless, the paltry sums that you claim the Vatican only has, is better than nothing. The Vatican needs to divest itself of riches and give the money to the poor, that is the basic message of Jesus, and supposedly Christianity.

ketsuko
reply to post by benrl

 

Yes and no.

Left wing liberalism is forced redistribution. Jesus wanted it done voluntarily. There is a big difference.

A truly Christian world would look very much like a socialist utopia in a lot of ways with one very big difference - there would be no overwhelming, all-controlling state needed to enforce it all. Another big difference is that all those people who sit there doing nothing to help themselves would also be out working even if they were unable to produce enough. There neighbors who had more would gladly give to make up the difference. And no one would feel any envy or spite for who had more or less or anything else.

What I described above is simply not possible with human nature being what it is. And trying to force it through the law is not the type of world that Christ wanted because then it's not voluntary and thus not Christian. There is no compulsion in faith.

Yet people who claim to Expound this faith of the republican verity tend to be the loudest against social welfare of any kind.

No matter the mental gymnastics to justify that stance that entails as a christian.

Simple solution, Religion out of politics.

As those that do that, are pandering period, and nothing to do with Actual faith.

BenReclused
reply to post by sleeper

 

I own my underwear, and my house and car. I have to pay taxes on my house and car if I want to keep owing them, upkeep on my house and car cost me plenty.

Why not practice what you preach?

Sell that underwear, that house, and that car, and give the money to the poor. With the money that you'd save from taxes, and upkeep expenses, you could even continue giving to those that have far less. That may not be much, but it would certainly be much more productive than, just, bitching about the Catholic Church owns.

See ya,
Milt

edit on 782America/Chicago12RAmerica/Chicago2013-12-03T11:47:02-06:00Tuesdayu02America/Chicago by BenReclused because: Typo

Not a bad idea, will give it some thought considering that my property taxes keep going up on my abode. Now, starting with my underwear, do I hear two dollars, going once, going twice...

Milt said he would sell his ride, but no one has that kind of money.

First of all, Rush Limbaugh is insane. And if he is sane and just a propagandist putting on an act, what he says is insane. Second, the Catholic Church employs over 1 million people. After paying living wages for its employees, the other 90% of the Church's annual spending is spent on different kinds of charity and is the most charitable organization on Earth in terms of money spent, most of the other 10% on Church renovations and construction all over the world. No I did not make this number up, you can look it up for yourself. The Church does not hold onto it's treasures for material reasons, but rather to preserve its history. The Church also wants to ensure financial security, which paid off with the recent sex abuse scandal. Also, the worth of the Church's financial holdings and worth of its treasures is both unknown and a secret.