Is it time to throw Limbaugh under the bus?
Politics — By Rachel Motte on March 6, 2009 at 4:17 pmNah. Not yet.
You can read my more detailed take on this at CNN.com/commentary….
Tags: Rush Limbaugh
Print This PostTags: Rush Limbaugh
Print This Post
Tweet This
Digg This
Save to delicious
Stumble it
- RT @ScriptoriumTHI: Three Steps to the Trinity: My book is officially released today: The Deep Things of God http://bit.ly/aJpmCu #EORT @ScriptoriumTHI: Three Steps to the Trinity: My book is officially released today: The Deep Things of God http://bit.ly/aJpmCu #EO […]RachelMotte (Rachel Motte)
Twitter Feed #EO
View Comments
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.
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.
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.
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!”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
On that we agree, anyone who would even consider following you as an example is beyond saving.
BTW Boonton, I apologize for telling the truth about how you despise and disrespect the Catholic Church. Somebody had to do it though.