Is it time to throw Limbaugh under the bus?

Politics — By on March 6, 2009 at 4:17 pm

Nah. Not yet.
You can read my more detailed take on this at CNN.com/commentary…. ‘


Tags:
  • http://www.johnmarkreynolds.com John Mark Reynolds

    It is fun to blog in the same century with you.

  • ex-preacher

    No, we need the bus.

  • Evangelically Irrelevant

    President Obama is planning to sign an executive order on Monday rolling back restrictions on federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research, according to sources close to the issue.
    Although the exact wording of the order has not been revealed, the White House plans an 11 a.m. ceremony to sign the order repealing one of the most controversial steps taken by his predecessor, fulfilling one of Obama’s eagerly anticipated campaign promises.

    Nobody could have predicted that the fundies would lose this “war” so spectactularly.
    Next up: gay marriage.
    History is the bus. It is not just passing evangelicals by. It is rolling right over them.
    Again: as predicted. Just ask Joe Carter.

  • http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com Collin Brendemuehl

    Everything will work itself out when Steele figures out that he is a party leader, not a philosophical leader. Parties are mechanisms that must by a world view. Conservatism needs Rush and the “conservative party” may cease to exist if it continues to be the proxy Democrat that it has become.

  • Caroline

    This little blog is nothing but a bunch of sanctimonious crap. You are so out of touch with reality it’s insane. You fall prey to the Republican need to diminish Obama because you know that the Repugs will never produce someone so great again. The party is run by old, white, rich men who are too arrogant to see 1 foot beyond their own needs.
    You use Christ as a shield, but someone who posts catty comments about Obama and follows arrogant Republican ideals has no true faith. You will be judged, and let me tell you – you will NOT be going to heaven – there’s another place made especially for the Republicans.

  • Matt

    Thanks for this article. Just linked it on my facebook! I appreciate what your saying from one RushBaby to another :)

  • Jody

    As one who used to listen to Rush and looked at the world in a lot more black and white, I found myself outgrowing his rhetoric as I got older. Rush represents what I find disgusting in modern day conservatives; do as I say because if you look at what I do you would walk away shaking your head in disgust. When did conservatism mean christian and social conservatism? Real conservatism may not agree with abortion, but they sure as heck wouldn’t want the government to make that decision. Real conservatism may not agree with embryonic stem cell research, but they wouldn’t want the government making that decision. Same with drug use. Same with gun laws. Same with all of it. Let’s get back to being conservatism and stop being moralists. Then maybe I wouldn’t be embarrassed when I pull out my Republican Party membership card.

  • mark

    Caroline:
    There are “special” places for people like you as well. It is just a little warmer there.

  • http://www.automaticheartbreak.com Corey Dargel

    Hi Rachel, While I was interested to read your take on the Rush situation, I have to agree with one of the CNN.com posters who points out that Limbaugh represents the absolute opposite of what being a good Christian is about, which as you know involves looking to Jesus’ sayings and actions for guidance. Rush apparently thinks the Bible says “The Lord helps those who help themselves.” I would hope that someone like you would not buy into that nonsense.

  • Eric Johnson

    Hi Rachel…I just read your commentary on CNN.com and how you admire El Rushbo, so very much…
    What do you admire most about him? His giving back to the community and those less fortunate than him? Let’s see, Michael J. Fox is less fortunate. Did you admire the way he made fun of his affliction by mocking it on the air? Or did you enjoy it when he said the health pan, if passed, should be called the Edward Kennedy Memorial plan? Oh, I know, you must admire him because of the way he insisted on playning that song, repeatedly: Barack The Magic Negro. You know, Rachel, Rush is a racist. Do you remember why he resigned from his commentator position with ESPN? Oh boy, Rachel…you must have liked his term: Feminazi or his quote: “Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society”. He would mock homeless people by playing a blues song” Ain’t Got no Home… So please, Rachel, I know you grew up loving Rush, but what most endears you to him? Thank you, Eric Johnson

  • http://www.automaticheartbreak.com Corey Dargel

    Hi Rachel, While I was interested to read your take on the Rush situation, I have to agree with one of the CNN.com posters who points out that Limbaugh represents the absolute opposite of what being a good Christian is about, which as you know involves looking to Jesus’ sayings and actions for guidance. Rush apparently thinks the Bible says “The Lord helps those who help themselves.” I would hope that someone like you would not buy into that nonsense.

  • Eric Johnson

    Hi Rachel…I just read your commentary on CNN.com and how you admire El Rushbo, so very much…
    What do you admire most about him? His giving back to the community and those less fortunate than him? Let’s see, Michael J. Fox is less fortunate. Did you admire the way he made fun of his affliction by mocking it on the air? Or did you enjoy it when he said the health pan, if passed, should be called the Edward Kennedy Memorial plan? Oh, I know, you must admire him because of the way he insisted on playning that song, repeatedly: Barack The Magic Negro. You know, Rachel, Rush is a racist. Do you remember why he resigned from his commentator position with ESPN? Oh boy, Rachel…you must have liked his term: Feminazi or his quote: “Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society”. He would mock homeless people by playing a blues song” Ain’t Got no Home… So please, Rachel, I know you grew up loving Rush, but what most endears you to him? Thank you, Eric Johnson

  • Eric Johnson

    Hi Rachel…I just read your commentary on CNN.com and how you admire El Rushbo, so very much…
    What do you admire most about him? His giving back to the community and those less fortunate than him? Let’s see, Michael J. Fox is less fortunate. Did you admire the way he made fun of his affliction by mocking it on the air? Or did you enjoy it when he said the health pan, if passed, should be called the Edward Kennedy Memorial plan? Oh, I know, you must admire him because of the way he insisted on playing that song, repeatedly: Barack The Magic Negro. You know, Rachel, Rush is a racist. Do you remember why he resigned from his commentator position with ESPN? Oh boy, Rachel…you must have liked his term: Feminazi or his quote: “Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society”. He would mock homeless people by playing a blues song” Ain’t Got no Home… So please, Rachel, I know you grew up loving Rush, but what most endears you to him? Thank you, Eric Johnson

  • Ted M

    Rush babies, like Reagan babies, are the upcoming scourge of our nation. Hopefully, your brains will engage some day and you will see what tripe you have been fed, and therefore, regurgitate.
    Were I a Republican (and no, I am not a Democrat), I would be shaking in my boots knowing that the upcoming generation of “conservative” youth holds thugs such as Rush Limbaugh in such high esteem. Hell, whatever one’s affiliation, you kids are scary.
    To think they used to warn us of inner city gangstas. I’ll take them over “Rush babies” any day.

  • Ted M

    Rush babies, like Reagan babies, are the upcoming scourge of our nation. Hopefully, your brains will engage some day and you will see what tripe you have been fed, and therefore, regurgitate.
    Were I a Republican (and no, I am not a Democrat), I would be shaking in my boots knowing that the upcoming generation of “conservative” youth holds thugs such as Rush Limbaugh in such high esteem. Hell, whatever one’s affiliation, you kids are scary.
    To think they used to warn us of inner city gangstas. I’ll take them over “Rush babies” any day.

  • Ted M

    Rush babies, like Reagan babies, are the upcoming scourge of our nation. Hopefully, your brains will engage some day and you will see what tripe you have been fed, and therefore, regurgitate.
    Were I a Republican (and no, I am not a Democrat), I would be shaking in my boots knowing that the upcoming generation of “conservative” youth holds thugs such as Rush Limbaugh in such high esteem. Hell, whatever one’s affiliation, you kids are scary.
    To think they used to warn us of inner city gangstas. I’ll take them over “Rush babies” any day.

  • Shane

    The only true republican left is Ron Paul, letting the crazy Christians take over the party was the last straw for me. As a former republican I am totally embarrassed at the current state of the party.
    God & religion has no place in our government.
    “Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone upon man” – Thomas Jefferson
    “During fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been it its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolences in the clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution” – James Madison
    “Lighthouses are more useful than churches” – Benjamin Franklin
    “This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in it” – John Adams
    “I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has produced- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced.” – John Adams
    “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion, as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitian nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of harmony between the two countries.” – George Washington
    “The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma.” – Abraham Lincoln

  • Philly Amelia

    I applaud your fair and thoughtful piece on Rush Limbaugh. My views are really liberal, but I like to formulate my philosophy based on substantive issues and not spin and propaganda. I hate that we (on all sides) are expected to repeat the party line verbatim. As citizens in a democracy, we must think for ourselves. Yes, many times I still come to a liberal left wing opinion on issues, but NOT ALWAYS. We should never be afraid to challenge the prevailing wisdom and our own bias. It is essential that we understand what we believe. Congratulations for presenting real thoughts and not hiding them in spin. Your views seem to come from a true and genuine process and I look forward to more of your commentary. I may not agree with (frankly, possibly almost all) your opinions, but I respect you as an intelligent writer who thinks for herself. More importantly, you seem to want others to gather information and think for themselves as well. A thoughtful dissent is much more patriotic than blind loyalty. Keep it up!

  • ucfengr

    It wasn’t that long ago that the left was saying “patriotism is the highest form of dissent”. It’s amazing how quickly that can change when your guy is the one getting all the patriotism.

  • ucfengr

    Whoops, should read “dissent is the highest form of patriotism”. I hate when that happens.

  • Steve D

    I quit listening to Rush Limbaugh about 14 or 15 years ago. I was at lunch in my car and he started talking about how ugly Chelsea Clinton was. At the time she was 12 or 13 years old. Kids in that age group are still trying to figure out life and here was Rush older supposedly wiser who was making fun of her for her looks. Not unlike a school yard bully. I quit listening because I discovered that Rush was nothing but a school yard bully.
    His actions of the past month or so confirm my feelings about him. He hasn’t added anything to the debate. He has, however, bullied those who disagree with him within his own party.
    Like most bullies, he mocks those who dare to challenge his power.
    If the Republican Party wants to gain power back, its members need to have the ability to have debates about the substance of issues not to listen to the threats of a bully. Frankly, it’s time for the Republican Party to become what they are now supposed to be, the loyal opposition. That is what this country needs.

  • ex-preacher

    Although I disagree with almost everything Rush says, I do congratulate you, Rachel, on a very well-written article.

  • http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com Collin Brendemuehl

    ucfengr,
    Seems to work both ways for me.
    ;-)
    Enjoy your weekend.
    Collin

  • CT

    Might the church not better reflect Christ without Rush Limbaugh? At least from an outsider’s perspective, meekness and humility and the revolutionary ethic of the Sermon on the Mount are much more tempting–much more convincing to what might just be a partially awakening conscience.
    And then there’s Rush Limbaugh. It’s like a fly in honey. The bride of Christ defiles herself with this man.

  • ucfengr

    Might the church not better reflect Christ without Rush Limbaugh?
    When ever there is talk of the Catholic Church denying communion to pro-abortion politicians, there always a hue and cry from the left. Now those same people want the church to dissociate themselves from Limbaugh, a man with no power in the church or in government. Am I the only one who sees a huge disconnect here?

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    I agree, any Church that embraces ucfengr can’t really object to embracing Rush.

  • ucfengr

    I agree, any Church that embraces ucfengr can’t really object to embracing Rush.
    This would be one of those posts that I wish I could recall if I’d typed it. It isn’t funny and it doesn’t address the point it is responding to. All in all, a pretty weak effort.

  • Linda Weaver

    Rachel,
    Congratulations on a great post! CNN wow!

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    Sorry that I haven’t been keeping up with not one but three Rush related posts on this blog (ohhh no it’s a great blog wow!)
    but…..ucfengr wrote:
    people want the church to dissociate themselves from Limbaugh
    What exactly does this mean? First, which Church? The Catholic Church? All Christians taken together as ‘THE CHURCH’?
    Second, what is meant by associate and dissociate? If you’re talking about denial of communion….well the Catholic Church sets the bar to get and be denied communion very, very high. To get it you have to be very close to the Catholic Church’s theological stances. Once there, though, it is very hard to get yourself ‘denied communion’. I have no idea what Rush’s religious beliefs are so I don’t know if he would be able to validly get communion in a Catholic Church to begin with but even very odious political views are insufficient to get yourself kicked off the communion line. The pope just ‘rehabilitated’ a dissident who is a rabie Holacause denier, for example.
    If by dissassociate you mean that the church should publically denounce Rush….I see no reason why. I don’t object to a Church taking policy stances but it seems kind of silly to me for churches to get in the business of publishing lists of ‘BAD PEOPLE(tm)’. But then again any individual church is free to do whatever they want, I just think going down that road is kind of silly.
    Or are what we talking about here is conflating ‘the church’ with conservativism or the Republican Party as if they were interchangeable? If so then I think this is one of the primary mental dysfunctions that resulted in the poor results Republicans had in the last election.

  • ucfengr

    Boonton, perhaps you should read some of the posts I was responding to before responding to mine. That might provide you with some context. I was responding to one of the common themes on these Limbaugh threads that Christians should disassociate themselves from Limbaugh and contrasting that with the outcry whenever it is discussed that pro-abortion Catholics should be denied Communion.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    The ‘outcry’ is for a very specific reason. It does not fit Church law that a Catholic be denied communion simply for supporting legal abortion or even just voting for a person who does. Conservative claims to the contrary have not conformed with cannon law, which can be evidenced from the fact that attempts by Bishops and others to ‘deny communion’ usually result in the authority backing down when challenged to justify his attempt under cannon law.
    I don’t think this can be analgous to a call to ‘disassociate’ onesself from a particular person’s political views. The former might be analgous to a criminal sanction which must follow due process and abide by a very formal procedure. The latter is basically little more than a statement of opinion.

  • smmtheory

    Note to the casual reader about Boonton’s comment – Boonton is non-Catholic and despises the Catholic Church and its teaching on abortion. That influences everything Boonton writes about the Catholic Church.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    A nice example of ad hominem by smmtheory.

  • JillD

    Kathleen Sebelius, the pro-abortion governor of Kansas and sadly soon to join Obama as the head of Health of Human Services, is a Catholic who has been asked not to present herself for Communion and has agreed to stay in her pew during the distribution of the Eucharist.
    No backing down here. The bishops try to move slowly and give the Catholic politician who is creating scandal some time to repent of their public stand on abortion. If they will not, they are asked to refrain from the Eucharist.
    This is where it now stands with Gov. Sebelius.

  • smmtheory

    What, the truth is now ad hominem? Providing context for your comment is ad hominem Boonton?

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    What, the truth is now ad hominem?
    Ad hominem is often misused. It does not mean calling someone names or making personal insults, it means reasoning by it. Al Franklin’s book, Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot, for example, is not an ad hominem attack. Saying Rush is wrong on net neutrality because he is a big fat idiot, though, is.
    Whether I despise the Catholic Church or not is irrelevant. Either I’m correct in my description of its theology and cannon law or I’m not. For the record I don’t despise it. In fact I appreciate the fact that they are relatively consistent in their approach but I would say I disagree with their approach to politics. I wouldn’t define questioning and disagreeing as despising. That would make it tricky to differentiate between people and entities I can respectfully disagree with and those I disagree with AND despise (such as you).

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    As to being ‘asked’ not to receive communion….note the phrase, ‘asked’. Kathleen Sebelius is going along with a request. She is not excommunicated and if she challenged the Bishop she would almost certainly win.
    You might want to consult http://mobile.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/05/21/excommunication/index.html (yes I know Salon is probably on your list of all things evil, but if the facts are wrong demonstrate it)

    In reality, it is quite difficult to excommunicate yourself, even if you do have an abortion. Only seven acts merit automatic excommunication, and only three of those acts can be committed by laypeople. One of them is to attempt to assassinate the pope, another is profaning the Host (the Communion wafer), and the last is to successfully perform or have an abortion. No attempted or actual “murder” other than abortion subjects you to the ultimate penalty of automatic excommunication — you can massacre thousands of civilians in war and, while you will surely have sinned, you are not automatically excommunicated.

    But the code of canon law also states that “automatic” excommunication for abortion is not really automatic. Canon law 1323 sets out the exceptions for excommunication. If one is under 17, ignorant of the penalty for one’s deed, acts out of fear or coercion, or believes one’s action is moral, the penalty does not apply. Many canon lawyers have said that it is unlikely that any woman who has an abortion does not meet one of those exculpatory conditions. Even economic stress could be considered to be coercive

    Produce a formal ‘bull of excommunication’ on her if you can. Otherwise what you produced is a game. They asked her and she went along but does this demonstrate anything about cannon law?

  • JillD

    I consulted a book about excommunication in the Church to see if any CANON (note the spelling) law addresses this issue. Some Catholics are VERY frustrated at how slowly the Church seems to be addressing the question of pro-abortion politicians; others say that that’s the way the Church moves: slowly and deliberately. Believe me, this issue is being studied widely and deeply. Recently, Canon 1369 has been mentioned as one that could be used against pro-abort politicians for the harm that they do to the Church and to society by their abuse of the means of communication to spread contempt for the Church and for good morals. Though the Pope enacts canon law, the Church itself could also enact special legislation in this area.
    I don’t think this is a game at all. I became Catholic for the simple reason that I desired to receive the True Eucharist, a concept I’m sure you don’t quite understand. If Sebelius is much of a Catholic, her heart is broken about being denied the Eucharist, whether by her own agreement to those terms, or by a decision of canon law.

  • Da Pope

    “I became Catholic for the simple reason that I desired to receive the True Eucharist, a concept I’m sure you don’t quite understand.”
    Apparently the True Eucharist makes one arrogant.
    How wonderful it must be to receive it.

  • smmtheory

    I wouldn’t define questioning and disagreeing as despising.

    You don’t question and disagree, you mock and you disrespect the Catholic Church. That is despising. The fact that you quote a magazine article (from an OPINION section even) external to the Church shows how you fear to learn the truth. The truth is that Canon Law authorizes and decrees that any person known to be in a state of grave moral sin can be denied communion. In other words, if a priest believes that a person standing before him to receive the Eucharist has committed or is committing a grave moral sin, then he is required and justified in denying that person communion. Also, the Church itself doesn’t excommunicate people. They excommunicate themselves. Only rarely does the Church formally acknowledge that state with a formal bull or writ.

    How wonderful it must be to receive it.

    Yes, and for those who are in willfully in cooperation with grave sin, how terrible.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    Smmtheory:
    You don’t question and disagree, you mock and you disrespect the Catholic Church.
    Where have I done this?
    The fact that you quote a magazine article (from an OPINION section even) external to the Church
    What the hell is this? The USSR? “Ohhh Comrade, I see you are given to quoting FOREIGN publications that have opinions!”
    The truth is that Canon Law authorizes and decrees that any person known to be in a state of grave moral sin can be denied communion
    True a person in mortal sin is not supposed to receive communion. This would include having or performing an abortion but not telling judges how they are supposed to read the Constitution, telling voters how to vote or legislators what bills they can and can’t vote for.
    In other words, if a priest believes that a person standing before him to receive the Eucharist has committed or is committing a grave moral sin, then he is required and justified in denying that person communion.
    This conclusion is not supported by you. Doing a bit of research today I couldn’t find any clear statement on this. At least as far as excommunication goes the Parish priest cannot make this decision:

    But a parish priest cannot inflict this penalty nor even declare that it is incurred, i.e. he cannot do so in an official and judicial manner.

    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm
    This site provides a bit more
    http://www.catholic.com/library/Who_Can_Receive_Communion.asp

    A mortal sin is any sin whose matter is grave and which has been committed willfully and with knowledge of its seriousness. Grave matter includes, but is not limited to, murder, receiving or participating in an abortion, homosexual acts, having sexual intercourse outside of marriage or in an invalid marriage, and deliberately engaging in impure thoughts ….Second, you must have been to confession since your last mortal sin

    The confession requirement makes your assertion suspect. Since confession is anonymous (a person can go to confession in another parish, for example). The priest would normally have no way to know if the person in front of him is still in a state of mortal sin. This would also seem to open up a pandora’s box of problems. If the priest is abusing his power there doesn’t seem to be a clear way to address it. For example, if he denies you communion because he has heard you are having an affair with someone else’s wife….exactly how is the priest supposed to determine your guilt and how is he authorized to ‘out’ you in a public place?
    Another example, if the person has gone to confession, they would be forced to reveal this in public to the priest who is denying them…thereby violating the confidentiality of the confessional…which is a big deal. Or in the previous example suppose the woman you’re having the affair with confessed it to the priest?
    The example you may be thinking of is cases of divorced people who have remarried. Since their new marriages are not considered valid, they are basically in a constant state of sin until they end their new marriage. Then maybe the parish priest might be able to say that the “he might have went to confession Saturday night” case wouldn’t apply and publically deny communion. I’ll leave it to you to see if you can find any sources that actually support your suspect assertions.
    Also, the Church itself doesn’t excommunicate people. They excommunicate themselves
    Really?

    the principal and severest censure, is a medicinal, spiritual penalty that deprives the guilty Christian of all participation in the common blessings of ecclesiastical society. Being a penalty, it supposes guilt; and being the most serious penalty that the Church can inflict,

    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm
    Jilld
    Recently, Canon 1369 has been mentioned as one that could be used against pro-abort politician
    You mean:

    Can. 1369 A person is to be punished with a just penalty, who, at a public event or assembly, or in a published writing, or by otherwise using the means of social communication, utters blasphemy, or gravely harms public morals, or rails at or excites hatred of or contempt for religion or the Church.

    I suppose if you take a Stalinist enough reading of this you can make it say whatever you want. I suppose a pro-choice person who went ballastic directly on the Church could fit here but I would think twice before using this as a bully club to browbeat people into voting for your candidates and legislators into voting your way on laws.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    My response is waiting in the spam filter (probably too many url links)

  • Rob Ryan

    “Is it time to throw Limbaugh under the bus?”
    I like buses too much to do that.

  • http://anailinhisplace.net jweaks

    Have read this blog off and on for a couple of years. The content is usually good. The comments however are more inane than not, would be a better blog if comments were moderated. Peace, jw

  • smmtheory

    Where have I done this?

    Every time you argued for abortion, every time you argued for recognition of homogamous unions as marriage, every time you argued against Church teaching you disrespected the Catholic Church. Every time you argued that abortion could be justified under the self defense theory, you mocked the Catholic Church. I’m sure oher examples could be found, but those are the specifics with which I am familiar.

    This conclusion is not supported by you.

    It is supported by Canon Law, but I doubt you have the patience to wait until I can locate the pertinent text, and considering how little you do to encourage my cooperation, it may be a long wait. I know I am right and I don’t care if you acknowledge it or not. Your dubious arguementation regarding public disclosure of confessional that supposedly took place somewhere else in no way changes the Priest’s obligation to protect the sinner from themself.

    the principal and severest censure, is a medicinal, spiritual penalty that deprives the guilty Christian of all participation in the common blessings of ecclesiastical society. Being a penalty, it supposes guilt; and being the most serious penalty that the Church can inflict,

    You should have read more of the article you linked, then you would have seen that I was correct… as shown in this other quote within the article:

    Excommunication, especially a jure, is either latæ or ferendæ sententiæ. The first is incurred as soon as the offence is committed and by reason of the offence itself (eo ipso) without intervention of any ecclesiastical judge; it is recognized in the terms used by the legislator, for instance: “the culprit will be excommunicated at once, by the fact itself [statim, ipso facto]”.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    Every time you argued for abortion, every time you argued for recognition of homogamous unions as marriage, every time you argued against Church teaching you disrespected the Catholic Church.
    Your specific assertion was:
    You don’t question and disagree, you mock and you disrespect the Catholic Church. That is despising.
    So now the truth comes out. To disagree, according to smmtheory, automatically means ‘to mock and disrespect’.
    It is supported by Canon Law, but I doubt you have the patience to wait until I can locate the pertinent text,
    TRANSLATION: I don’t know what I’m talking about
    Your dubious arguementation regarding public disclosure of confessional that supposedly took place somewhere else…
    Hardly dubious at all. Sin is a highly personal issue. That is why Catholics are supposed to go to confession at least once a year (and are encouraged to go much more). The Catholic is required to examine their conscience and discuss both thoughts and behaviors privately with a priest. Sin is not a spectator activity that the priest is supposed to pick out by looking out over the crowd the way a cop looks for speeders while sitting on the side of the highway. Your idea of a priest making these calls while passing out communion instead of in the confessional violates this idea.
    I’m not saying there’s any specific Cannon law prohibiting a priest from denying communion. I’m sure he can do so in extreme cases (such as a resonable belief that the person on line might be some type of protestor who wants to make a scene by dessecrating the host).
    You should have read more of the article you linked, then you would have seen that I was correct… as shown in this other quote within the article:
    You haven’t contradicted anything I said. The Church imposes the penality of excommunication for certain acts. Latae simply means that the Church is not obligated to uncover the fact that you committed the act (granted, of course, you’re kind of on the honor system here…if no one knows you committed the act then it’s on you to consider yourself excommunicated and act accordingly). Ferendæ sententiæ would be applicable where the Church must make a determination formally. An example might be the bishop who was recently unexcommunicated for rejecting Vatican II. Originally, he was excommunicated ferendæ sententiæ….when the Church formally found his teachings were so out of line that he was declared excommunicated. If he had, say, sucker punched the Pope he would have been excommunicated latae….i.e. immediately upon throwing the punch no need to wait for a Bull of Excommunication.
    Latae applies to actually performing or getting an abortion (with the cavets from the Salon article). Catholics who want to excommunicate other Catholics for voting the wrong way or making speeches they don’t like deserve no special favors than liberal Catholics who want to excommunicate Bishops who reject Vatican II and deny the Holocaust.

  • smmtheory

    So now the truth comes out. To disagree, according to smmtheory, automatically means ‘to mock and disrespect’.

    No, I meant specifically you, not disagreeing in general. The determination is made not in the fact of disagreeing, but in how you disagree and in how you state your disagreement. You know, there are people that make comments here that disagree with the teachings of the Catholic Church, but they don’t pretend to be respectful of the teachings like you do. They don’t presume to lecture Catholics on catholicism as you do (the hallmark of non-Christians, lecturing Christians on how to be Christians).

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    No, I meant specifically you, not disagreeing in general. The determination is made not in the fact of disagreeing, but in how you disagree and in how you state your disagreement.
    OK…
    You know, there are people that make comments here that disagree with the teachings of the Catholic Church, but they don’t pretend to be respectful of the teachings like you do.
    So in order for me to disagree I have to what? Pretend to be disrespectful? Be outright disrespectful? What? You accused me of being disrespectful and mocking of the Catholic Church. To date you have not articulated a single thing I have said that is either except asserting that I did so by ‘disagreeing’. You either honestly believe disagreement is impossible or you’re a fool has yet to grow beyond mudslinging as his only tool in a discussion. No mystery which one I think is the case.
    They don’t presume to lecture Catholics on catholicism as you do.
    I lecture no one. If I’m going to disagree with something (or even agree with it), I’m going to try to know what I’m talking about. If I’m wrong then I’m wrong but it seems you’re unable to tell….perhaps you’re the non-Catholic lecturing us on Catholicism.

  • smmtheory

    you’re a fool has yet to grow beyond mudslinging as his only tool in a discussion.

    Who are you to accuse me of mudslinging? Quit your whining. The only use you have for Canon law is to verbally bludgeon somebody with your twisted interpretation of it, and it is not even as if you would for a moment consider living by Canon law. Quite the contrary. That is the level of your disrespect.

  • JillD

    Abp. Raymond Burke has written a very convincing and compelling article in what could be the world’s most prestigious canon law journal, “Periodica de re Canonica” in Rome. It’s titled “The Discipline Regarding the Denial of Holy Communion to Those Obstinately Persevering in Manifest Grave Sin.” Canon 915 is the basis of his argument.
    To quote a portion:
    “…there are other cases in which Holy Communion must be denied, apart from any imposition or declaration of a canonical penalty, in order to respect the holiness of the Sacrament, to safeguard the salvation of the soul of the party presenting himself to receive Holy Communion, and to avoid scandal.”
    A brief description of Abp. Burke’s article can be found here:
    http://www.canonlaw.info/2007/09/abp-raymond-burke-on-canon-915.html
    And the article itself, quite lengthy, can be found here:
    http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/holycom/denial.htm
    His arguments are based in the law of the church, decrees, codes, and eastern canon law. I’m not knowledgeable about law, but, as a Catholic, I am encouraged by this line of thought as the scandal that people like Pelosi, Sebelius, Kerry, Giuliani, and others bring to the Sacrament is unconscionable.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    I think at this point smmtheory has been exposed for what he is and little more needs to be addressed to him on this matter until he either supports or apologizes for his unfounded accusations against me.
    JillD
    If you’d like to continue the discussion please let me know. I’ll make an effort to read through the article you cited. I suspect the flaw in it (or actually the flaw in your assumption that denial of communion should become a widespread practice) rests in the phrase “to avoid scandal”.
    In deference to the demand that I not use a non-Catholic sources, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13506d.htm says that scandal is
    “scandal is a word or action evil in itself, which occasions another’s spiritual ruin.”
    The problem, I think, with your argument is that it is pretty hard to buy that because a person sees, say, Rudy G. getting communion they are going to think it’s acceptable to go out and have an abortion. The church has been extremely clear on how it feels about abortion, which I suspect makes it trickier to actually pull off a ‘scandal’.
    Contrast this with the other example of the divorced person who has remarried. Scandal might reasonably be applied here since there are many remarrieds in the Church, they are technically in a constant state of sin and receiving communion might give the impression to other remarrieds that everything is ok with their current state. I’m not saying this couldn’t apply to abortion. I’m sure a woman who, say, was on a book tour hyping her story of how happy she feels because she had an abortion would fit the definition of scandal quite easily. Likewise a doctor who is well known to everyone because he has giant ads in the subway advertising his abortion services. Even here I suspect the scandal isn’t quite so much other people thinking abortion is ok but other people thinking they can receive communion while in a state of mortal sin.
    To extent this to using communion as a political club to force people to vote as the Church would like would be quite a deviation. For example, while the Church is pretty clear on the issue of remarried divorced people and it has opposed divorce being written into the civil law (see Ireland) it has not denied communion to those who vote to do so or, even worse, voted for candidates who did so. If it did, it would be almost impossible for any Catholic to vote for any state office since no one, to my knowledge, has run on eliminating divorce.

  • JillD

    You must be an excellent lawyer as you just don’t let go. It is a SCANDAL to me to see pro-abort pols take Communion. It is as follows. It’s just not that hard. You may NOT think it’s a scandal. I do. And so does Abp. Burke. I’m done.
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scandal
    scan⋅dal
      –noun
    1. a disgraceful or discreditable action, circumstance, etc.
    2. an offense caused by a fault or misdeed.
    3. damage to reputation; public disgrace.
    4. defamatory talk; malicious gossip.
    5. a person whose conduct brings disgrace or offense.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    A source from outside the Church! Horrors, run Jill, smmtheory will say you’re mocking and disrespecting the Church!! Ohh wait, you agree with him so you get the double standard.
    Anyway, I agree scandal does have that wider meaning in our everyday usage. But for purposes of what the Church is talking about when it says someone has committed the sin of ‘scandal’, it seems to have a more limited and precise definition.

  • JillD

    I didn’t even think of using the Church’s definition for scandal, straight from the “Catechism of the Catholic Church.” These definitions are more in line with what you had to say, but surely you can see that if a Catholic sees rabid pro-abort Pelosi receive Communion in the apparently good graces of the Church, she may believe that the Church has “lightened up” and be led to sin, in any number of sexual sins: birth control, fornication, abortion. The Church needs to take a stand and make sure its people know what it means to be Catholic. No one HAS to be one, but if you claim to BE one, it should mean something.
    2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor’s tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.
    2285 Scandal takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it or the weakness of those who are scandalized. It prompted our Lord to utter this curse: “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.” Scandal is grave when given by those who by nature or office are obliged to teach and educate others. Jesus reproaches the scribes and Pharisees on this account: he likens them to wolves in sheep’s clothing.
    2286 Scandal can be provoked by laws or institutions, by fashion or opinion.
    Therefore, they are guilty of scandal who establish laws or social structures leading to the decline of morals and the corruption of religious practice, or to “social conditions that, intentionally or not, make Christian conduct and obedience to the Commandments difficult and practically impossible.” This is also true of business leaders who make rules encouraging fraud, teachers who provoke their children to anger, or manipulators of public opinion who turn it away from moral values.
    2326 Scandal is a grave offense when by deed or omission it deliberately leads others to sin gravely.
    2287 Anyone who uses the power at his disposal in such a way that it leads others to do wrong becomes guilty of scandal and responsible for the evil that he has directly or indirectly encouraged. “Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come!”

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    Where I would disagree is your assertion that Pelosi is a ‘rabid pro-abort(ion)’. That probably is a discussion for another day, though.
    Pelosi receive Communion in the apparently good graces of the Church, she may believe that the Church has “lightened up” and be led to sin, in any number of sexual sins: birth control, fornication, abortion.
    To committ the sin of scandal, using the definitions provided, one needs at least two things:
    1. An act that is in itself a sin
    2. Leading, trying to lead, or at least making it a reasonable certainity that someone else will be tempted to a sin.
    I think the hypothetical of the woman going on a book tour telling everyone having an abortion was the best thing in the world is a better example. You have the initial sin (abortion) coupled with the attempt to lead others to it (the book & tour).
    The problem, IMO, is you’re equating a feeling that gov’ts power should be limited in regulating abortion with the sin of abortion itself. I don’t buy that so unless you have something more substantive aganst Pelosi I would disagree with your conclusion.

  • JillD

    What a person says, the opinions they profess, seem to matter. The world went ballistic this week when the Pope visited Africa and encouraged them to practice sexual morality rather than rely on condoms to protect themselves from HIV. The world felt that the Pope’s WORDS would kill people. Well, when Pelosi advocates for the Freedom of Choice Act which is a RABIDLY pro-abortion piece of legislation, she is advocating for the deaths of many more unborn children. I don’t see how you can disagree with that statement. And if she is advocating murder, she is sinning. And if the Church does not take a stand against that advocacy, others will be led astray, confused about what the Church teaches and what they, as GOOD CATHOLICS, ought to practice.
    Why is this so difficult? People these days do not seem very bright and seem to be easily led to wrong and even bizarre, crazy thinking. People need a solid foundation which they can trust. Watching Pelosi receive the Body of Christ undermines that trust and creates confusion in many people’s minds – and anger and resentment in others. None of this is good. It is scandalous.

  • JillD

    Boonton, I’m not even sure what we’re “discussing” at this point. I’m saying the Catholic Church ought to deny the Eucharist to such as Pelosi. Are you saying they should not? If so, your opinion is not very important, sorry to say. For you to have an opinion about what the Church should or should not do or say is like me coming into your home and telling you how to raise your kids. It’s not my family! And the Church is not your family. You can hold your opinion; that’s fine. But unless you’re Catholic, it’s irrelevant. We’ve gotten WAY off the subject of Rush Limbaugh and you can hold all the opinions about him you like. If there are enough of you, he might actually listen.

  • smmtheory

    You must be an excellent lawyer as you just don’t let go.

    I’ve gotten the definite impression that Boonton likes to think of himself as the Devil’s Advocate in his commentary. That the Devil might be a literal entity, and that the part he likes to play might be literal instead of figurative is quite beyond his consideration.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    Well, when Pelosi advocates for the Freedom of Choice Act which is a RABIDLY pro-abortion piece of legislation, she is advocating for the deaths of many more unborn children
    Just out of curiousity, suppose Pelosi advocated…say…mandatory abortion for any woman serving a prison sentence who was pregnant? Or any woman who got pregnant while on welfare, foodstamps or disability must choose between aborting her child or giving up her benefits? Or say she advocated adopting China’s ‘one child policy’?
    How would you describe such a stance should anyone ever advocate it if the Freedom of Choice Act is ‘rabidly pro-abortion’? “Super duper rabidly”? Pray to God the Church never finds that excessive adjective abuse is sinful.
    If so, your opinion is not very important, sorry to say. For you to have an opinion about what the Church should or should not do or say is like me coming into your home and telling you how to raise your kids.
    Wrote JillD as she spouted her opinion on what the Catholic Church should do in the comments section of an evangelical blog…..somewhat ironic….
    Anyway, you are partially correct in that anyone’s opinion on what the Church should do is irrelevant. There are as many opinions as people so any one particular opinion isn’t very important in the big scheme of things. But the Church does claim and makes a very great effort to function not on the whims of whoever happens to be in charge at any point in time but by carefully developing its doctrine logically from first premises.
    Your argument is essentially based on total relativism. Whoever is in the ‘in group’ matters and everyone else doesn’t. Well the Church doesn’t claim to be a relativistic institution but an objective one. Assuming that it is, one needn’t be a member to examine its statements and try to understand what is meant by it.
    Smmtheory
    I’ve gotten the definite impression that Boonton likes to think of himself as the Devil’s Advocate in his commentary
    Actually the Devil’s Advocate is a paid position in the catholic Church. My services here are rendered free of charge for your benefit (and if I were you I’d take any free intellecutalizing you can get). You still either owe me an apology for your false accusations or a substantiation of them. Try to get it in before the weekend hits, I wouldn’t want you to attend communion as a bearer of false witness.

  • smmtheory

    You still either owe me an apology for your false accusations or a substantiation of them.

    You do more to substantiate my accusations than I ever could, so why should I go to all the effort? All people need do is read your commentary. Even should I receive communion without apologizing to you, it’s no big scandal.

  • http://TheEverwiseBoonton.blogspot.com Boonton

    On that we agree, anyone who would even consider following you as an example is beyond saving.

  • smmtheory

    BTW Boonton, I apologize for telling the truth about how you despise and disrespect the Catholic Church. Somebody had to do it though.