Anyone listen to Rush Limbaugh today?

Early in his show he was sounding critical of the Catholic church. Blaming priests and popes for support of welfare. Then I had to leave and could not hear the rest of it. Left too early.
Anybody know where he was going with it?

Catholics have always believed in helping the poor it is in the gospel and we have been doing it since Pentacost in 33 AD. We also believe in being good stewards of the money we have recieved with our hard work that has been given to us by the grace of God and we are expected to live simply and share it. We don’t support welfare systems that keep people on welfare for generations and we certainly don’t believe in handouts without work. 2 Thessalonians 3 verses 10-13: “Don’t you remember the rule we had when we lived with you? “If you don’t work, you don’t eat.” And now we’re getting reports that a bunch of lazy good-for-nothings are taking advantage of you. This must not be tolerated. We command them to get to work immediately—no excuses, no arguments—and earn their own keep. Friends, don’t slack off in doing your duty.”

I didn’t hear him today but he has said and probably was saying that the Catholic Church went along with all the welfare and now the government has turned it’s back on the Church. He says the Church accepted government programs in their schools and hospitals and now they are stuck. Catholics were normally Democrat. Just heard a poll out today that over 50% of Catholics who go to church each week will support Obama.

I can see that the church might have thought all that welfare was good in the day but probably didn’t realize where it would lead today.

I listened and didn’t hear that. I may have missed it, I guess.

Rush has to fill three hours of radio airtime every day. It’s inevitable that he will put his foot in his mouth.

which version is this? lets try N.A.B. instead of the cotton patch translation.                                                                                                                            

We instruct you, brothers, in the name of [our] Lord Jesus Christ, to shun any brother who conducts himself in a disorderly way and not according to the tradition they received from us.*
For you know how one must imitate us. For we did not act in a disorderly way among you,
nor did we eat food received free from anyone. On the contrary, in toil and drudgery, night and day we worked, so as not to burden any of you.d
Not that we do not have the right. Rather, we wanted to present ourselves as a model for you, so that you might imitate us.e
In fact, when we were with you, we instructed you that if anyone was unwilling to work, neither should that one eat.f
We hear that some are conducting themselves among you in a disorderly way, by not keeping busy but minding the business of others.g
Such people we instruct and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to work quietly and to eat their own food.
But you, brothers, do not be remiss in doing good.
If anyone does not obey our word as expressed in this letter, take note of this person not to associate with him, that he may be put to shame.
Do not regard him as an enemy but admonish him as a brother.h
May the Lord of peace himself give you peace at all times and in every way. The Lord be with all of you.i
This greeting is in my own hand, Paul’s. This is the sign in every letter; this is how I write.j
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with all of you.

  • [3:1–18] The final chapter urges the Thessalonians to pray for Paul and his colleagues (2 Thes 3:1–2) and reiterates confidence in the Thessalonians (2 Thes 3:3–5), while admonishing them about a specific problem in their community that has grown out of the intense eschatological speculation, namely, not to work but to become instead disorderly busybodies (2 Thes 3:6–15). A benediction (2 Thes 3:16) and postscript in Paul’s own hand round out the letter. On 2 Thes 3:17–18, cf. note on 2 Thes 2:2.
  • [3:6] Some members of the community, probably because they regarded the parousia as imminent or the new age of the Lord to be already here (2 Thes 2:2), had apparently ceased to work for a living. The disciplinary problem they posed could be rooted in distorted thinking about Paul’s own teaching (cf. 1 Thes 2:16; 3:3–4; 5:4–5) or, more likely, in a forged letter (2 Thes 2:2) and the type of teaching dealt with in 2 Thes 2:1–15. The apostle’s own moral teaching, reflected in his selfless labors for others, was rooted in a deep doctrinal concern for the gospel message (cf. 1 Thes 2:3–10).

the highlighted is the commentary from the U.S.C.C.B. site,this Scripture passage has nothing to do with the discussion. paraphrasing Scripture is a dangerous pastime.

Maybe Rush Limbaugh doesn’t like the Church’s compassion for the poor.

He has come to the Church’s defense on occasion.

FWIW, it’s a translation called The Message: The Bible in Contemporary Language (MSG). If you want to get an idea of how really, really bad it is…

This is how much God loved the world: He gave his Son, his one and only son. And this is why: so that no one need be destroyed; by believing in him, anyone can have a whole and lasting life. God didn’t go to all the trouble of sending his Son merely to point an accusing finger, telling the world how bad it was. He came to help, to put the world right again.
[RIGHT][alleged to be John 3:16-17, according to MSG][/RIGHT]


I didn’t hear the commentary, but I do believe that some voices in the church who call for welfare in the name of social justice miss a few key points.

First, many citizens are lulled into a false sense that they are doing their part to support the poor simply by paying their taxes. We are called to support the poor out of our own means. Secondly, Jesus never preached that Caesar must take care of the poor. That is a command that is reserved for everyone. And, finally, I believe that we do a great disservice when we subsidize laziness. Each person has something very precious to give and must be encouraged to utilize their talents and gifts for the glory of God and his people. When someone chooses to avoid work, they are deprived of the joy and satisfaction of doing an honest days work and knowing someone is better off because they went to work.

I don’t believe that a call for welfare is an absolute teaching of the church. Instead, I think a few have spoken out supporting welfare as a means to social justice. I don’t believe we are bound to believe.

then the original post is worse than i thought.

No, but the Vicar of Christ has called for public welfare systems and social insurance in Encyclicals, along with charity.

…the administration projects that “combined federal and state welfare spending will not drop significantly once the economy fully recovers,” with the annual tab reaching $1 trillion in 2014 and the 10-year total hitting $10.3 trillion – an amount that, Tanner calculates, comes to** “$250,000 for every American currently living in poverty, or $1 million for every poor family of four.”** …

The War on Poverty: $15 Trillion and Nothing to Show for It
Written by Michael Tennant
Tuesday, 26 June 2012 07:06$15-trillion-and-nothing-to-show-for-it

Not exactly what I would call good stewardship.

On occasion. It depends if he agrees with what the Church is saying at the moment.

I usually have my Bible verse serach defaulted for NAB or RSV and every once in a while I will use the Douay Rheims however this Message Bible populated results instead and it IS really bad!!! I didn’t even know it existed until someone pointed it out on here and I had to google it because I have never heard of it before. Thanks everyone for pointing this out!

So? He took one guy to task for complaining about the Church. Rush’s position was, “Hey, no one is forcing you to be a Catholic.” Another time he chastised Sinead O’Neil for ripping up a photo of the pope and calling him a devil. I’m not sure these fit your statement. In any event, haven’t you ever criticized an institution you didn’t agree with?

Maybe Rush Limbaugh doesn’t like the Church’s compassion for the poor.

do you listen to him?

Not today, but it’s easy enough to find a transcript. A ctrl-f only finds “catholic” mentioned once, so maybe there was something additional?

The opening three paragraphs–

Taxes and Welfare do not equal Charity

I want you to ask yourself a question: In your life, your entire life, have you ever thought of the government – have you ever thought of taxes and welfare together – as charity? Now, we know the Catholic Church did. They’ve admitted it. Various prelates, archbishops, monsignors, popes, over the years, we know have equated high taxes and activist government with charity. That’s why they supported it. “Liberalism, socialism equals charity. That’s what we churches do, is we help the poor.” Blah, blah.

But I’m asking: In your lifetime, have you ever heard anybody who has achieved in life or is successful and maybe rich argue for tax increases – or argue against tax cuts on the basis, “No, no. We need to help people. It’s charity. The government’s charity” – as a way of making themselves feel good and look good to others? I’m not aware of it. In my lifetime, up until Obama becoming president, I’m not aware of this phenomenon of the rich and the successful looking at tax increases as okay because that’s charity.

Charity is not donated at the point of a gun or threat of a prison cell, a’la Obamacare! Charity is not conscripted. Charity is willingly given from the heart, or for the tax deduction. But you have no choice when it comes to taxes. I’d like to see how the government stacks up as a charity anyway based on the usual standards that we would measure other charities by: The administrative costs, what are the real results, the net dollars, all that. I bet it would look bad.

Really, I didn’t know that. Could you point out an encyclical that calls for a welfare system similar to the one we have here in the United States? And, are Catholics free to dissent or is this teaching infallible?

It was about a half hour into his show. I distinctly heard him criticizing popes. And the church. But then I had to leave so I certainly missed a lot.

As a man who has had 4 marriages, adultery and some other accusations which may or may not be true I do have a problem with him representing conservatives. And his life style does not represent Christianity as I know it.

Making it clear I may have missed something important.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit