...and tear down the building and salt the land it stood on.

With the CCHD funding pro-abortion groups and pro-abortion politicians, and now this latest outrage, plus the bishops' repeatedly coming out for national socialist healthcare and every budget-busting, family-destroying program the Democratic Party can dream up...

It's just too much for words.

I agree with you on the main point of your article - however I would not categorize Limbaugh as a classic conservative or Glen Beck for that matter - they are entertainment personalities who seek to appeal to the lowest common denominator, and the baser emotions such as hate and anger - and who name call on a daily basis anyone that goes against a hard right position - I have listened to them regularly very carefully and even when I find agreement with them on an issue I still think they abuse the notion of free speech as much as their so called "liberal" counterparts - Personally I now listen to EWTN and have found several online journals including InsideCatholic.com that address issues from a true conservative viewpoint but in a much less obstreperous manner. So my solution would be change the channel, or the radio dial. Maybe you could write a column on this issue - perhaps you have and I missed it. I highly value your point of view in any case.

Perhaps the USCCB saw this as a step in returning to a more reasonable and civil discourse in the media - however misguided their decision was - as a possible motivation, it would be, without excusing it, understandable though that's pure speculation on my part...

The bishops need to butt out. This is ridiculous. Have they been listening to the White House and their targeting of FOX News and anyone else who doesn't agree with them? I don't always agree with Limbaugh but I would hardly say he engages in "hate speech." I guess I could call anything I don't agree with "hate speech" but that would be to become like the White House partisans. Sometimes people say things that we don't want to hear. In that case, turn off the radio or t.v. We don't need to shut them down or punish them somehow. Last time I checked this was a free country. Although, since January of this year it has been slowly sliding in another direction.

Sometime ago, Rush Limbaugh made an observation about
media thinking on the war:
"Republican bombs bad, democratic bombs good."

This can be expanded into free speech:
Conservative hate speech bad,
Liberal hate speech good.

This administration and some of those who voted
for it, are more concerned that war be waged on
FOX news, for example, instead of other enemies who
regularily attack people for their values.

There are what people say Rush has said, and then, there are the words that Rush has actually spoken. A longtime listener to Rush Limbaugh, I have never found these two to be the same things. As for hate speech, where is that in the founding documents? We go very far in this direction to our eventual regret.

When I read this it causes me to wonder what it was like in Germany or in China.... even the Sound of Music, my all time favorite Musical, portrays how the majority of people didn't see or register the gravity of the situation. My whole body trembles, my soul quakes at what is happening to our Church and our Country right before our eyes! Come Lord Jesus, Come! Open the eyes of your people, draw us close to YOU, inspire us with the courage and the boldness we need in this hour! Cover Deal and his staff with angelic protection and rise up a new spiritual army of faithful who will LIVE and Command True Freedom, the Freedom of Thy Kingdom, Thy Will hear on Earth as in Heaven.
As I recall God issued COMMANDMENTS to Moses, not suggestions; when will we learn, someone will be in COMMAND... if we, as a Nation and as a Church, reject God as Commander, another will take His place...... just look around and perhaps not far from our very selves.... is it obvious to everyone who knows you and works with you, that GOD is who you love/follow/serve above all? And to God, are we, in fact, more in communication with everyone else, more intimate with Facebook, than Him? This is the time to draw near to Him, to have His Name, His Face High in our consciousness..... not in a freaky way, but in a clear chain of command kind of way.... Your Will, Lord; not my will... strip everything from my heart, Lord except that which YOU call me to do and be! May I walk in a oneness with You that I serve as a warm LIGHT of fearlessness and calm each day to all who cross my path! Holy Spirit, You are my closest companion; guide me in the way I shall walk this day! Open my eyes to see how I might encourage, lift up, serve, lighten the burden of another this day!
Let us be Bold Lovers of the LORD and His Commands this day!

Funny, I thought the Catholic Church was all about "Us vs. Them".

"For we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places." -Ephesians 6:12

The Bishops need to be careful here: if they want to attack Limbaugh as a proponent of "hate speech," they need to understand that they themselves, could soon be a target of the PC police, for their criticism of gay marriage. The Left has a very expansive definition of "hate speech" which includes all sorts of things, especially criticism of gay marriage, and our friends in Canada and in Europe have been put on the defensive by all of this "hate speech" business.

This is a minefield and the Bishops should not try to walk through it. They may not like Limbaugh, but in their desire to bash him, they are only giving ammunition to the Left and the PC police, who will ultimately use it on the Bishops.

Limbaugh is not exactly a loveable type of person, he can be obnoxious, but I have never heard of him encouraging violence towards anyone, thus he has a right to his opinions and to air them. The Bishops may not like him, and that is their right, but they need to be savvy enough to understand that attacking Limbaugh as a purveyor of "hate speech" will ultimately backfire on them.

I sent this email to the USCCB Media Relations flora & fauna this morning:



A reply is -- not expected?

There are real marketing inconsistencies on the So We Might See website:



So you think that their mission is to encourage people to turn off the violent TV shows. It just happens that this year's theme is Hate Speech Hurts, directed at the likes of Rush Limbaugh (and, by association, Hannity, Beck, Levin, Savage, Ingraham, etc.).

The petition itself is a written joke. It speaks of "The possible correlation between hate speech and violent crime." They don't even present rational data to PROVE that correlation, instead offering the most flimsy "guilt by association" example and quote from Limbaugh.

This has many markings of a smear campaign. If these religious organizations really wanted to raise civil discourse, I would recommend teaching people how to think clearly, to express themselves rationally, and to seek the truth in discourse. Of course, that might be too hateful...

...... Spiritual Suicide by Christians who are blind to the firmness of the Gospel and have set themselves up as a Deity to administer "social justice" in the political correctness world they worship rather than the Almighty God who has the single authority to judge men's hearts, words, and deeds and who throughout history (Sodom and Gomorrah) has shown his wrath upon those who pervert the eternal laws of nature he established in the beginning.

"Forgive them for they know not what they do"

This applies to the so called Christian Leadership NOT to practicing homosexuals and their political supporters who desire to rewrite OUR gospels for us.

ChangeTheStory.net will focus on the divisive misconceptions Americans have of Catholic priests. Not all Catholic priests are child molesting peodophiles. Huge numbers of Americans profess to having little knowledge of Catholic priests despite the fact that there may be as many as 400,000 Catholic priests living in the U.S. ChangeTheStory.net is an on-line resource aimed at transforming harmful stereotypes about Catholic priests that persist in society.

The USCCB should be opposing Barack, not Rush, and there is part of me that thinks this is an attempt by them to curry favor with their real enemy.

Barack has got to be laughing his butt off. He has defeated the girlie-men of The USCCB with absolutely not even a hint of a struggle and it has now gotten so bad that the males in the USCCB are throwing-in in with him an attempt to silence Rush.

I suspect even Barack is surprised about just how supine, weak, and easily manipulated The USCCB is.

Perfect. The enemy of my enemy is my enemy.So much for the First Amendment.

Well, The USCCB has picked the wrong man to attack. Rush will rhetorically flail them alive - deservedly so.

Dear Pope. Please shut-down The USCCB. When it isn't useless, it is destructive.

of the Church's tax-exempt status. That will keep the USCCB in line since it's not justice they desire but just more money.

The Democratic Party is not for free speech. It is for free LIBERAL speech only. The Obama-ites want to criminalize Conservative views. And they will succeed, and America will slide into a complete liberal dictatorship. I see no way to stop it so long as Conservatives lack positions of leadership in the country.

I often wonder if many of the ultra-conservative Republicans realize how disappointing their words are to Republican Minorities. As a Hispanic Conservative, I often feel that other than my vote, we might as well as disappear. I have found Glen Beck offensive ( calling Obama a racist, so did Anne Coulter), Ann Coulter calling Obama by his middle name, Hussein, playing of the anti-Muslim sentiment in many Americans as well as Limbaugh supporting the flying of the Confederate Flag in the South, especially S. Carolina. The tough immigration talk to me is very demeaning. I continue to vote Republican because I have stong conservative beliefs and am Pro-life. But I do not feel welcomed in the Party and feel that real diversity in the Republican Party should be embraced all the time not just during an election.

It is soooo disgusting to see these so called "men of God" join in with all the other radical left wing liberals. I love my Catholic Faith & will never leave it, but I know without a doubt Jesus WILL weed out these brood of vipers who are destroying the Catholic Church from within. You bishops better start repenting of your false god of self love and reputation in the world and start living lives pleasing in the eyes of God and not men. YOU WILL HAVE A HEAVY PRICE TO PAY IN ETERNITY< FOR TO WHOM MUCH IS GIVEN MUCH IS EXPECTED>. All these bishops will be the ones who will be accountable for leading the flock astray. Your time is short!

I am an Independent but I noticed that George Bush placed Latinos and African Americans in high places in his administration so I don't accept the fact that Latinos are not accepted by the Republican Party. As for Rush L's hate speech...what about the hate speech AND actions by radical feminists and gays!!!??? The USCCB is afraid to go after them so they go after Rush. It is pathetic! What about the radical pro abortion Catholic politicians such as Pelosi, Sebelius, Biden, Kerry, Daschle, Dodd, etc.,etc.,etc.?! They not only accept abortion on demand, but they promote it forcefully...why isn't the USCCB going after them? What about the radical Kevin Jennings who promotes man/boy sex? And who has been made safe school czaar by Obama, thereby given free rein to indoctrinate school children...why isn't the USCCB going after him?! And so many others...it is so discouraging!!!! And Beck may act looney at times, and thoroughly annoying but the White House does not dispute his facts...only the fact that he tells the public about them. Why doesn't the USCCB go after Obama himself since he deliberately scorns them by appointing 'Catholics' who defy Church authority and teaching to high places in his administration? Wish Mother Angelica could rise from her bed and take on the USCCB as she once did...but she is battling now in a deeper and more powerful way through her suffering...

Ater reading Mr. Lord's aritcle in the American Spectatator I researched "So We Might See" as well as the USCCB's association with them. They have teamed up in the past for a "justice" issue which was harmless. I immediately wrote to the Justice/Development Office and received this gracious reply from Ms. Osman in Communciations.
"Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I have contacted the staff for the "So We Might See" campaign and asked for more information. Our objective in being part of the campaign was to encourage fair and open use of public airwaves and the Internet, especially by religious organizations and people of faith. The USCCB is not supporting any campaigns to encourage organizations to remove specific commentators or programs."

I encourage all of us to persevere in correcting this, and to
PRAY for our Bishops.
God bless,
Mary Drapeau

I won't post her whole response, butm ujihied

Rolando, Republicans are all for minorities and immigration. You are welcome in the Republican party.

Do you think Republicans are wrong to believe that every country must maintain borders and an orderly flow of new migration? I don't know of a single country in Central or South America that has open borders and automatic citizenship on arrival---do you?

So I'd like to hear your answer to this question: If no country on earth has open borders or grants automatic citizenship on arrival, why should the United States? Is it wrong for the United States to have fair rules to ensure orderly immigration?

This makes me wonder about USCCB's ties into our Administration.

He didn't need to defeat them. They were on his side from the start. If he were just willing to back off on abortion---not become pro-life, but just stop pushing for more of it---they'd enthusiastically back him on everything he wants.

It should be society's place to reject and reprimand people whose public statements are hateful, rude, or offensive. If we had a shared sense of what is and is not appropriate, and responded to offensive statements with condemnation and by avoiding that person, this would effectively end hateful and offensive speech. But I think the public perception of what is and is not acceptable has become so radically varied- from people who find simple statements of Catholic morality "hate speech" against homosexuals, to those who would condemn any mention of the fact that illegal immigration is illegal as racism- and people have become willing to accept the most rude and demeaning statements about the opposition despite their being in poor taste, that it's impossible for "polite society" to keep anyone in check.

Since society can't keep the discourse civil, people turn to the government to regulate speech on the airwaves. But it's abundantly clear that any administration is going to be tempted toward silencing even legitimate opposition, while allowing even the most offensive of its supporters free reign. Federal restrictions on free speech are clearly not the answer. However, short of people returning to a sense of what is acceptable and what is "beneath them" (even when it comes from the same side of the political spectrum), I don't know how we can expect a return of sanity and civility in the public sphere.

You said it Fr. Fitzpatrick!
It is a colossal disaster! Abolish it!

And you too, I am not Spartacus: "When it is not useless, it is destructive.

The times we are in tell us:

Good is evil and evil is good.

Hate crimes (truthful words) that "lead to violence"... BAD!

But ACTUAL DELIBERATE VIOLENT CRIMES EVERY DAY BY THE THOUSANDS against the unborn... GOOD!

I could go on about ACTUAL violent crimes our past and present administration continue to inflict on innocent foreign civilians including children in Afghanistan and Iraq (depleted uranium used resulting in horrificly malformed children who suffer unspeakably) and Gaza (we supplied the phosphorus bombs), war,war,war for no good reason except their profit and power... this is GOOD!

May God help us to know what to do and how to pray. And may He protect all people of good will. Come Lord Jesus!

I've listened to Rush for a long time. He is not what I'd call a conservative, but a classical liberal -- of the 19th century variety. That said, he believes in the rule of law; and he treats callers with great respect (unlike some others). The bishops who seek to bring him down for supposed "hate" speech are guilty of slander. They too would be victims of the same accusation, if they ever troubled themselves to preach clearly about anything at all.

Our? council of Bishops, like any American Political organization is 70 percent Liberal, 30 percent Traditional Catholic. Look at the so-called Catholics, in the democratic party! Sorry,I forgot the 'Sell my Soul' counterpart republicans, in both Houses. Pray that we may survive the coming test of Faith.

Let's face it gang!

The U.S.C.C.B. has served for the past half century as little more than the left wing of the Democratic Party at prayer!

But this situation unfortunately was fostered at the top!

The problem we face today has its source in the successful revolt of politically leftist orthodox Catholics (see Jacques Maritain & Augustin Bea) with Modernist theologians led by Karl Rahner, Hans Kung, Yves Congar etc.) who overturned the Council's Schemata at its first session.

It was downhill from there as the papers crafted by the Council were written in an ambiguous manner which enabled interpretations which have devestated the Church's doctrinal structure over the past four decades!

When Orthodox prelates asked for qualifying anathemas to accompany the documents to assure correct interpretations they were told by both presiding Pontiffs that the Council was unique in that it was "pastoral" and not "dogmatic"!

Yet as soon as it was adjourned, the reforms were jammed down throats via the Council's authority as dogmatic whether they pertained to doctrine or social policy emanating from it, no matter how previous Church directions were turned on their head! Leading this charge were Karl Rahner, Hans Kung, Yves Congar, and a cunning theological strategist, Henri De Lubac. The brilliant, orthodox Dominican Reginald Garrigou Lagrange who had successfully fought this group (he helped draft Humani Generis) lay on his deathbed!

This was accompanied by a state policy of Ostpolitik crafted for John XXIII and Paul VI by Jacques Maritain, who while theologically orthodox, was paradoxically a committed political "man of the left" and Cdls. Bea and Villot.


Those who predicted the problems or valiantly fought to deal with them (Alfredo Ottaviani, Marcel Lefebvre and Romano Amerio come to mind) were marginalized and trashed, sadly enough by many who are rightfully up in arms today!

Thankfully a chastened Joseph Ratzinger who was a "nouvelle theologie" zealot back then is now well aware of the problems and seems to have a strategy to deal with them.

The categorization of the Council as "pastoral" has enabled the Holy Father to correctly state that its provisions must be interpreted through the magisterium defined by the teachings of prior dogmatic Councils (see Trent and Vatican I) stretching back to the Fourth Century.

Therefore in a paradoxical manner, the Holy Ghost was present at Vatican II and spoke through declarations of John and Paul regarding its status! Chesterton would have a field day in explaining this today!

But returning to Deal's subject. Benedict should deal directly with U.S. Archbishops who in turn will pass down decisions to suffragen Bishops, as in the past, bypassing bureaucratic and politically driven "Bishops Conferences." "Collegiality" is another rotten fruit of Vatican II and a failed experiment seeking a deposit in a landfill!

Now I'll step down from my soapbox!

Tony, I couldn’t have said it any better.

Exactly what is the purpose of the USCCB? For that matter, what is the purpose of Holy Mother Church? I thought it was the salvation of souls, but apparently I’m sadly mistaken.

Now the USCCB is signing up to take on the role of assistant thought police? What will these bishops do when they are accused of a hate crime for opposing gay marriage or when their opposition to gay marriage is cited as a reason for violence against homosexuals? I am reminded of the words of Winston Churchill: “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile hoping it will eat him last”. If the USCCB doesn’t have the sense to avoid political witch hunts, it should be disbanded.

As for Limbaugh, at some point, his opponents are going to have to realize something: if he was guilty of spewing hate speech, his sponsors would have dropped him a very long time ago, and his audience would have abandoned him as well.

It is so sad that the USCCB has bought into this. I listen to Rush and watch Glen Beck. I do not hear hate speech..I hear old fashioned truth. Unfortunately, our Church is becoming more and more divided. I am old and I have watched our Church change, and in this case not for the good. Unless these Bishops have listened to GB and Rush consistently, maybe they should not form an opinion unless they are truly informed themselves by listening to the programs...I am a very conservative Catholic and there are some of us still left in this country; At least I would like to believe that..

:)


The problem is, they are still associated with and appear supportive of the organization overall. This is the same as saying I give money to Planned Parenthood to be used for their mammography service, but I'm not supporting abortion. The immediate response should have been repudiation of the campaign against Free Speech, and the ties with the organization behind it severed, not 'we're waiting for them to give us more info'. What more do they need?




If that is the case, they are more obtuse than they appear. They are turning against the very people who actually fill seats in their pews and drop actual money into their baskets. The majority of Catholics who actually attend Mass regularly and are more charitable have been shown time and again to be of a more 'conservative' bent.

Several weeks ago, I was unable to attend Mass at my regular parish and had to attend the evening Mass at the Cathedral. The priest did his homily on anger and used 'conservative talk radio' as his example. Considering this was not long after our oh so gracious president had told us "I won" and he wanted conservatives to shut up and get out of his way, I was a little put out, to say the least, and will admit that it made it far more difficult to find the loose change in the bottom of my purse when the basket came around.

A few short weeks later, my bishop had a letter read at all Masses, pretty much begging for money. I have chosen to give my treasure directly to my parish, in order to keep it running so I don't have to go to the nearer 'social justice' obsessed ones, and other charities I believe will actually do some good with it. I am greatly saddened by this, but I will not give money that I believe will be, or even could be, used to promote things I don't support, like the suppression of Free Speech, for instance.

I, too, have listened to 'conservative' talk radio for some time, and I've never heard anything to compare to the hateful rhetoric coming out of liberals' mouths. Rush says things like 'liberalism isn't rooted in reality' and backs it up on his opinion show. Sometimes he uses sarcasm and satire, which I might find offensive if I were the type who refused to see the truth in it. On the other hand, liberal MSM talking heads call conservative protesters 'teabaggers' and make incredibly lewd jokes at the protester’s expense. And this is done on what are meant to be actual 'news' programs. The double standard is atrocious.

And Chrissy G, I’m going to have to disagree here:
I never once heard of George W Bush trying to ‘shut up’ his detractors on MSM or any other forum (including the Floor of the US House of Reps where he was actually boo’d, and funnily enough, there were no calls for any investigation and or censure ala Rep. Joe Wilson, but hey. If ever there would have been the temptation to do so, Bush had ample reason for it. If anything, he was actually the opposite, never addressing his detractors at all. I guess that’s just a little of the ‘change’ we’ve gotten from our new president.

To modern liberals/leftists, the truth probably seems like hate speech because it hurts so much. These groups are incapable of winning the debate, so their answer is to shut it down; control the flow of information so that only what you want the people indoctrinated with is released, just as the Soviets with Pravda, the Nazi’s, Hugo Chavez, and all dictators have done. Yes, I’m comparing the current administration/MSM tactics to those of dictatorships. I am sick that apparently a majority of Catholic bishops would be in favor of such duplicity. Until they make a complete, very public, refutation of this, they are complicit.

“The road to Hell is paved with the skulls of bishops.” ~Saint John Chrysostom

Pray for them.

Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn know well the injustice done in the name of hate speech. It's a cryin' shame the USCCB supports such violence in the name of peace.

I want to pull the remaining hair out of my head!

An event that is associated with the hate speech
issue, is the fact that within the past six months the
Archbishop of Scranton, Pa., and his auxilliary both
resigned. Abp Joseph Martino had been very active in
informing the people of his diocese that the abortion
issue was to be THE factor in deciding who to vote for.
He also did not want Biden receiving communion in the
Scranton diocese. For no apparent or typical reason
(sex scandal, theft) the Abp. is pressured or forced
to resign.
Were his actions and speeches considered "hate
speech" by the USCCB and the laity within his
diocese? In another direction, will speech such as
that by Bill Maher or David Letterman also be
considered hate speech? Don't hold your breath.

Pamela, I don't think your statement about the Bush administration really disagrees with what I was trying to say.

I think there is a great danger in instituting far-reaching "hate speech" laws because once they were in place, the temptation to abuse them would be massive. That's not to say that every administration would fall into the temptation, but it's unwise to create such a situation.

Certainly a grim reminder for any pastor who is charged to care for his flock. But I wouldn't take this action by the USCCB Office of Media Relations to infer the damnation of current bishops.

Still, thank you for reminding us to pray for them. This country is blessed to have some very good (read: holy) Bishops. And conversion takes time, as many of us know all too well.

When you can't tell the difference between truth and hate speech, you've got a big problem.

Limbaugh is indecent, immoral and laughing all the way to the bank. And, his biggest laughs are directed at the fools who defend him. He doesn't care about truth because truth doesn't sell. Limbaugh makes millions because the easily manipulated rightwing listens to him. They listen because he tells them exactly what they want to hear: hate. And as long as they keep listening, Limbaugh will not only have the biggest laughs, but also the last laugh.

An inter-faith coalition for media justice investigation into Limbaugh's hate-filled show is a good idea. What took them so long?

When all of the host on MSNBC call conservatives Nazi's, racist, unamerican on a daily basis you say nothing. When you realize that the left is filled with hate for anyone that disagrees with them. Your siding with leftist will bring about your own destruction.
Since you have decided to make our church a political action arm of the left I can no longer contribute.

What Rush said may not be politically correct, oft times political correctness is in itself the crime.

It seems that most people that denounce Limbaugh's "hate speech" don't listen to him but rather the media's perception of him. Case in point: the quotes on slavery that were falsely attributed to him yet gleefully reported by the Mainstream media. When those quotes were proven to be fake, the media was slow and lackluster in its apologies. The damage had been done- people believed that Limbaugh thought slavery was a good thing (which anyone who's ever listened to him knows is absurd) and were unaware of the slanderous nature of the attacks.

Their response to my email:Are they part of the petition?? Or part of it??

USCCB is responding to a petition filed before the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") by the National Hispanic Media Coalition, which asks the FCC to open a Notice of Inquiry to request public comments the extent and nature of hate speech in the media. USCCB supports the establishment of a broad public forum to debate the difficult constitutional and regulatory issues, including the potential danger to religious speech, raised by the petitioners.

We are asking the FCC to make available a proceeding where the public can attempt to describe speech anyone deems harmful, and where the public (including Catholics and the bishops) can raise important constitutional constraints on government action regarding speech, including religious speech.

We are not participating in any campaign to censor any organization, program or commentator.

From misdirected bishops who listen to those they place in positions of in the USCCB. They attack those who they should leave alone and support those they shouldn't. Take ACORN! Positive ratings for movies that are in contrary to Catholic teachings. That refuse to protect the Eucharist from sacrilege by giving it to catholic politicians that in their VERY public life flaunt their noses at Catholic teachings continue to be a scandal to the Catholic faith. All of these issues have caused me to stop supporting anything these bishops promote, like the Catholic Services Appeal. God, when will you deliver your people?

Chrissy G, I could not agree more that this sort of power in the hands of any administration could be dangerous and therefore should be opposed. We are in agreement. I simply felt the need to defend the previous administration, that was and still is criticized (sometimes viciously) on so many levels (some deserved, some not), because the evidence proves that they did not try to silence the opposition. It was also more to emphasize the point that silencing the opposition is more the MO of liberals/leftists, (those who contradictorily try to wear the mantle of tolerance, attacking their opponents as bigoted and narrow-minded, etc...) than that of conservatives.

Scotty, I never mean to imply the damnation of anyone. Not my place to judge that, thank goodness. As you say, it is just a reminder of the enormity of the responsibilities that they bear and which so many seem so often to fail to uphold. Truly, this is one of the least of them, but with the USCCB and some individual bishops, there is one failure upon another. I will admit that I have wondered if some of them actually believe in Hell, or the Truth of the Church they are supposed to shepherd. Clearly, some have rejected at least large portions of that Truth and at times have caused scandal, and Saint John, Doctor of the Church, was pretty frank in that statement. One would hope they would consider that, and more importantly AND he said to his disciples: It is impossible that scandals should not come: but woe to him through whom they come. 2 It were better for him, that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should scandalize one of these little ones. I think it is scandalous for an official organization of the Church to support the attack or even the source of the attack on individuals and their freedoms. Some liberal Catholics will use this as an excuse to support the attack on these people and censoring of their opinions, which are, more times than not, the truth. That is horrifying.

So, yes, I believe we need to pray for them.

I have had just about enough of the USCCB! Social Justice has now become their Mantra while they neglect the liturgical abuses carried out in many parishes throughout this country .I find their collaboration on silencing Rush Limburgh appalling. Where was their sense of outrage when groups such as Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence entered our church and made a mockery of the Mass and the Eucharist. Where was their horror as they sat silently by while a Minnesota associate professor of biology P.Z. Myers desecrated the Most Blessed Sacrament on you tube? Where is their concern how watered down theology and ridiculous programs instructing our catechists such as Pathways is implemented in diocese after diocese teaching our children utter nonsense and nothing which even vaguely resembles our faith? Where were our Bishops when various media outlets cried out for violence to our former President Bush. where are they now when liberal groups fan the flame of racism because they cannot allow people to differ from the policies of our President.Hypocrits is to kind a term to describe their actions. Their calling is to teach and instruct not to politicize and advance their liberation theology. Maybe they should consider instructing the people who sit in the pews who are totally confused and clueless and searching for answers in their daily struggles. Maybe they should give them hope in the form of guidance in how to pray and understand the faith handed down to us by Jesus. Maybe they should teach their priest to have courage to stand up and proclaim the truth instead of listening week after week of comfortable sermons meant not to offend. Enough is enough I will no longer give these people any financial contribution.

USCCB reply

Dear. Mr. Mosby,



My response



These guys are either tendentious or feeble amateurs. If one had faith in USCCB, consider revising that opinion.

This abomination merely confirms that the American bishops are clueless and cowardly.

It is obvious that the Catholic Church has been infiltrated by Satan's minions, those who are working to tear down this nation and the Church. The USCCB is riddled with Marxists who use the Bishops' Conference as a vehicle to effect the outcome of every election, thereby guaranteeing a continual lurch to the left. When America is finally ruled by a totalitarian, Godless authority, the bishops who have brought this on, will continue to distort the Bible and tell us to do as Peter says in 1 Peter 2:13-14 when our hospitals are forced to perform abortions and dispense birth control pills, and our priests are forced to marry homosexuals. The few holy and good bishops and priests, of course, will continue to speak out against the evil that is being wrought, and they will be persecuted, imprisoned, and even killed for speaking God's Truth.

Come Lord Jesus! Your Church is getting smaller and smaller.

Has anyone considered a scenario wherein people were recruited for clerical and religious careers with the intention of destroying the Faith?

I believe that Bela Dodd disclosed this tactic a half century ago before a Congressional Committee!

If so, we shouldn't be so surprised at what we're now enduring and witnessing!

I'm reminded of the last scene of the "Bridge on the River Kwai" in which the doctor looks over the scene of carnage and destruction and explodes: "Madness! Madness!" History is repleat with "decent" people thinking they could get along with tyranny and being swallowed up by the tyrant. Who are the faceless people on these USCCB "committees" who are guiding the bishops to suicidal projects -- using the hard earned (stolen) money of the people in the pews. If the USCCB cannot, or will not, pull back and redirect these "committees" to the spiritual needs of the Church, then the USCCB should disband. Right now there are too many signs that it provides corporate cover for too many slovenly or cowardly or politicised bishops, and ignores or belittles those who stand athwart history and cry "stop". (Not my original idea.) $100million to social programs which include the likes of ACORN; $2 Billion for the results of putting abusive priests into the hands to anti-religion psychiatry; now joining a "public forum" to debate political speech. History pretty much guarantees: you will be eaten alive by the process you are embracing. More damning still: so will the people of God.

I would love to be able to listen in on the weekly conference call between the Vatican and all the regional Churches...

VATICAN: So let's go around the table. This week, we effectively ended 500 years of schism with our Protestant brothers and sisters by inviting them into unity with our Church. Oh, and we also closed the African Synod, which addressed such issues as world hunger, disease, AIDS... the usual boilerplate stuff. How about you, United States?

USCCB: Okay, so over here there's this guy who talks on the radio, right? And our idea is to -- this is genius -- encourage the State regulatory agency to investigate allll the things he's ever said on the radio! We're trying to prove the link -- perhaps on the quantum level -- between the things he says on the radio and seemingly random, disconnected events which occur soon after he says those things. It's like... ever see that movie "The Butterfly Effect"?

VATICAN: Uhhhh....

USCCB: Nah! We're just messing with you. We're still trying to deal with the problems we've been having with the comboxes on our blog (http://usccbmedia.blogspot.com/2009/09/jarring-contrast.html).

The last time I listened on a regular basis to Rush Limbaugh was in the early 90's.

At the time, he was outrageous only in the sense that he tended to spell out the absurdities of left-wing politics without apology or indeed any caution about whether folk with tender sensibilities might be listening.

I don't, however, recall him ever saying anything I would regard as "hateful." Insensitive, yes...but typically for comic effect, not for the purpose of inciting hatred. Certainly he was never a bigot of any kind, so far as I could tell. He did make gleefully chauvinist-sounding jokes about the National Organization of Women, because that was exactly the kind of thing that would most irritate the National Organization of Women, but not in a way that would cause me to suspect that he had any lack of respect for women in general.

I recall that, on occasion, the insensitivity was for the purpose of making a valid point. "Caller abortions" was one such example: He would have a caller call in, then cut the call short while having his sound-effects guy play flushing noises, vacuum-cleaner sounds, and such, at the end of which he'd say something like, "Did we get the whole call?"

This of course sparked great outrage, after which he did a show saying [I'm paraphrasing], "Look, you folk were getting upset at my aborting a telephone call as a radio schtick in which no one actually died. Have you considered this happens over a million times a year, in which innocent children actually die? If you found yourself getting upset about this, ask yourself, which is worse, a radio comedy routine in questionable taste done with sound effects, or the actual practice of abortion?"

This is what I recall of his show.

I haven't listened to it in fifteen years, but I have assumed from the complaints of leftist that he has continued to say the same kind of stuff he always has: Impolite, but not hateful; poking fun but not inciting violence; one-sided in politics but no more so than, say, Garrison Keilor, and usually rather funnier.

I stopped listening not out of disgust, or even much disagreement, but out of boredom: One could predict what he'd say, and one could listen for five minutes and know the substance of what he'd be opining on for an entire month.

Has there been some substantive change? Enough that'd merit a person whose political views are essentially conservative or libertarian wanting to distance themselves from Limbaugh's views? Or a Catholic? Limbaugh's no Catholic, but I'm unaware of anything anti-Catholic he's said, and the conservatism he defends is not intrinsically anti-Catholic.

I get the impression that there hasn't been any real change in his comedy routine; and that the only reason people react to the name "Limbaugh" with such rancor is that they've learned it's politically incorrect to think the man's anything other than a horrifying troglodyte. When someone says something negative about Limbaugh in casual conversation, all "good hearted" persons are socially obligated to say, "Oh, yes, horrible sort of fellow, he ought to be drawn and quartered," even if they know nothing about him themselves. To violate this social convention is like violating the convention against discussing one's colostomy bag at dinner.

But in my own experience, there wasn't much difference between him and any other entertainer. It'd be something like, "Well, do you want to watch reruns of Victor Borge, or listen to Rush Limbaugh?" Either way you know the schtick by heart already, so it's a matter of whether one wants political humor or musical humor, on any given day.

Has there been a substantive change?

Or is this just the usual double-standard in which it's cool to wear t-shirts with murdering leftist maniacs on them (Mao, Che) and make excuses for Bill Ayers and that pedophile movie director whats-his-name, but Limbaugh, being a garden-variety if rather lowbrow conservative, must be excoriated and vilified with the same kind of vituperation Goebbels reserved for the Jews?

I have found Glen Beck offensive ( calling Obama a racist, so did Anne Coulter),

He is a racist. He made that perfectly in his autobios and in the way he handled the arrest of his racist buddy,Henry Louis Gates.

Ann Coulter calling Obama by his middle name, Hussein,

That is his name.
"Obama today confirmed that he will take the presidential oath of office using his middle name, Hussein, a choice depicted as routine but likely to be viewed as an olive branch by majority-Muslim nations.

Obama's oath-taking plan comes after a campaign season that saw his full name used in a pejorative capacity by several allies of his rival, John McCain. The president-elect described taking the oath with his full name as a run-of-the-mill decision not intended to be significant.

"I think the tradition is that they use all three names" to swear in new presidents, Obama told the Los Angeles Times, "and I will follow the tradition, not trying to make a statement one way or the other. I'll do what everybody else does."

Yet several recent American presidents, including Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, omitted their middle name when taking the oath.

playing of the anti-Muslim sentiment

When they stop killing innocent Christians all over the world chances are the criticism, weak as it is, will subside.

in many Americans as well as Limbaugh supporting the flying of the Confederate Flag in the South, especially S. Carolina.

I too am in favor of that. Why are Southrons, alone among Americans, forbidden their heritage? Why is racism against Whites in the South acceptable?

A majority of the USCCB bishops and "progressive" Catholics seem to have forgotten Our Blessed Mother the Virgin Mary who is "our life our sweetness and our HOPE."
"To Jesus through Mary," says DeMontfort.

Holy Scripture says "not to hope in the princes of this world."
Our holy Creator God means what He says.

Didn't one of the early Church Fathers say something to the effect that "the floor of Hell is paved with the skulls of many Bishops. Sadly, it seems that a new batch is in the making.

Holy Virgin Mary, pray for us who have recourse to Thee; protect Holy Mother Church from those who would harm Her from within and without.

Haay, Charles,

Do you have any specifics to back up your charges against Rush, or are you just repeating what others have said? Who should we listen to? Keith?

Awaiting your reply...

Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Glen Beck are rabble rousers. They are neocon shills. Like any good propagandists they take commendable moral stances in order to gain adherents. They attack liberal outrages and this gives them credibility, but they never attack the military industrial interests. But the trouble with labeling them, or anyone as peddlers of hate, is that this accusation could be leveled at anyone. I have seen people viciously attack the Catholic Church, yet curiously this never is classed as peddling hate. There are people who do peddle hate, and they should be muzzled, but there are also people who scream hate peddling at anyone they don't agree with. The thing is if I was the Bishops I would be careful of justifying and calling for hate crime investigations because this charge could and has been leveled against Catholic church teaching.

The content of the article about this at the American Spectator <http://tinyurl.com/FCCChurchConsp> caused me to write the letter below to my local bishop. I am also including the response, set by the chancellor of the Diocese of Arlington.

-------------------------------

The Rev. Bp. Paul Loverde
Arlington, VA

Your Excellency:

With great disturbance I am reading today in an article on the American Thinker blog . It reveals that the USCCB has allowed itself to be instrumentalized by surrogates of the Obama administration to vilify Rush Limbaugh and other conservative talk radio hosts. Apparently, several mainline denominations will be joined by the USCCB in denouncing them to the FCC as being guilty of hate speech.

This is directed at the current administration's most effective critics. As a listener of Limbaugh's I can tell you that his criticism of the Left may be sometimes irreverent, but is always keenly insightful and never hateful. The bet by the Obama administration seems to be that, while his audience is outnumbered only by those of major televised sports events, more people do not know what he is really like, than do. This current propaganda is aimed at motivating them to build broad popular disapproval of Rush Limbaugh and conservative talk radio as a whole. Perhaps this is not, in the legal sense, a violation of the First Amendment by the government, but it potentially has the same effect.

My questions to you, Your Excellency, are:

1. What is your stance on this blatant leftist assault on conservative expression?

2. Do you think the USCCB representing all U.S. Catholic bishops and the American faithful should be involved?

3. What are you going to do to prevent the USCCB from going forward with this?

4. Do you acknowledge that the Obama administration's ideology is contrary, if not contradictory, to Catholic teaching?

5. Do you acknowledge that the Obama administration has no regard for the U.S. Constitution other than as a means of obtaining power?

6. Do you acknowledge therefore that Obama administration has no regard for free expression and therefore even religious expression, if it stands in the way of their quest for more power?

7. Does the Catholic Church have a duty to defend the free expression of political conviction as a manifestation of the individual's unalienable dignity of having been created in the image and likeness of God?

I am writing this with great urgency and concern because my own answers to Questions 2 and 4 through 7 are, no, and four emphatic yeses. We are at the beginning of what could become an enormous struggle for the values that are dear to us, both as embodied in what the fathers of the Constitution fought for and in Catholic teaching.

My family daily includes you as our bishop in the intentions for the Fifth Mystery of the Rosary, that the Holy Spirit support you in your mission to teach, govern and sanctify your flock.

Yours sincerely,

Dominik Hoffmann

-------------------------------

Dear Mr. Hoffmann:

Bishop Loverde has received your e-mail inquiry about a Petition to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding hate speech, and has asked me to reply on his behalf. For the time you took to express your concerns to him, Bishop Loverde asked me to convey to you his appreciation.

Here is some background on this situation:

In January 2009, the National Hispanic Media Coalition (NHMC) filed a Petition asking the FCC to examine the extent and effects of hate speech in the media, and to invite public comment on that subject. Since January, various groups have sent letters to the FCC commenting on NHMC’s Petition, and providing their own viewpoints on the issue of hate speech. Some of these letters, and the NHMC’s initial Petition itself, included critical discussions of certain talk radio programs.

In late July, a comment letter was submitted to the FCC on behalf of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. The USCCB’s comment letter did not discuss talk radio at all. Instead, the USCCB’s letter asked the FCC to seek public comment on constitutional and regulatory issues of particular concern to the Church. These issues included:

– concern over whether “hate speech” might be defined so broadly that Catholic teachings regarding marriage or homosexual acts might be deemed “hate speech” by activist groups. (This is a significant issue, as such cases have arisen in Canada and other countries with hate speech laws.);
– concern over whether one religious group’s opinion that the religious beliefs of others are hateful should ever have legal significance; and
– questions about whether the First Amendment and statutory provisions may limit the FCC’s authority to define “hate speech” or otherwise to act in the area of hate speech.

It was certainly appropriate for the USCCB to seek to protect the rights of Catholics with regard to these issues, which potentially could involve infringements upon our religious liberty.

Recently, publicity has been given to a different comment letter that apparently is being submitted to the FCC by a group called “So We Might See,” which describes itself as “a national interfaith coalition for media justice.” This was the letter discussed in the article you linked to your e-mail message. The USCCB Communications Office has contacted the staff of “So We Might See” seeking more information about this letter.

The USCCB is not supporting a campaign against any talk radio commentator or program. Instead, their goal is to encourage fair and open use of public airwaves and the Internet, especially by religious organizations and people of faith.

I hope the above information is helpful. On behalf of Bishop Loverde I thank you for your continued prayers, and can assure you that Bishop will include you and your family in his own prayers.

With best wishes, I am

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Mark Herrmann

Chancellor
Catholic Diocese of Arlington
200 North Glebe Road, Suite 914
Arlington, Virginia 22203
(703) 841-2500

I think it is high time the US Bishops stops calling themselves Catholic. By their public acts, they cannot be Catholic by any stretch of the imagination. To accord them individually the title of bishop almost gives too much respectability to an organization that no longer provides any real catholic leadership. Where are the shepherd of souls hiding? They ought to leave Mr. Limbaugh alone and start taking care of the real spiritual needs of their dioceses.

I'm 77 years old. I have heard much and evaluated much. I've listened to Rush Limbaugh on and off for many years. I have never detected hatred in that man. Limbaugh tells things the way they are, and that infuriates the Liberals. For example: Limbaugh has stated that Barack Hussein Obama is heartless. I, too, think that Obama is heartless. In fact, I know that Obama is heartless.

When Obama was a representative of Illinois, he voted three times for INFANTICIDE. If Obama isn't heartless, then, what is he? Okay, Limbaugh told the truth and the Liberals hated it. The Liberals call that kind of speech "Hate Speech." To bad. I, too, know that Obama is heartless. SO THERE! It would be "hate speech" if we never spoke the truth and never came to the defense of the innocent. So you Liberals must get used to hear me and many other Rush Limbaughs, who are not afraid, to tell it like it is. Amen.

It's sad there is zero leadership from the, uh, "USCCB". Like all of us, they are accountable for their actions, and inaction. May God have mercy on them.

Ostende nobis, Domine, misericordiam Tuam.

First the ACORN funding scandal and now this. Our Bishops need to repent and don sackcloth. Worry about the souls of your flock, not the favor of the Obama administration. Another sad day indeed.

What ever is said about Rush Limbaugh is said by people who don't listen to his program. Having listened to him for at least 10 years, I can say he truly believes in this country and is a true American.

I am a cradle Catholic and am very dedicated to my faith. We are never supposed to criticize our priests or bishops, but we are to pray for them. However, something has gone wrong in the past years. Too many clergy are more interested in the money than saving the souls of their congregation. The warning is..... they will be held responsible for all they have led astray.

The USCCB building should be torn down, or sold.

If left-wing bishops want to lobby Congress for socialist programs, let them use their own postage stamps from their own chanceries. Not a year goes by without another scandal, with the CCHD funding yet another pro-abortion group or politician, or another condom-dispensing gay-rights community organization. Practically the only pro-life people in the building are the handful tucked away in the pro-life office.

The National Catholic Warfare Conference was set up to support Wilson's march to war--in defiance of the Pope. It morphed into a cheering section for FDR's New Deal, the National Catholic Welfare Conference. By the early 1980's, it was a center of pro-Soviet agitation, with "The Challenge of Peace," which fortunately had NO discernible effect on Reagan's conduct of the Cold War.

Tear it down!

I cannot believe that the Bishops of the United States are such supporters of illegal immigration - Emphasis on the word ILLEGAL - I will never ever support illegal immigration -

Why not condemn and investigate the pro-abortion Catholic Politicians instead of Rush Limbaugh? -

No Bishop will ever condemn this great man to me - I am also a cradle Catholic and I cannot believe that the Bishops are involved in such politically-charged matters as illegal immigration - Where were they prior to the last election? Why did we not hear from them about this evil man who is now our president?

God Bless Rush Limbaugh - We love you!

Where is the USCCB's outrage over hate speech toward Catholics such as Sarah Silverman's obscene sketch on Bill Maher about selling the Vatican to feed the poor? Or the anti-Catholic Simpson's episode that aired last week? Or Penn and Teller? etc. etc. etc. Why is it that organizations like the Catholic League are even necessary to defend us from anti-catholic attacks? Isn't that what our Bishops should be doing?

Its not what you say, it is what you know your words are intended to mean. Ann Coulter calling Obama by his middle name is clearly to play on the anti-muslim sentiment by many in OUR country. You can bury your head in the sand but its the truth. If you feel the Republican Pary is inclusive, just take a look at the demographics. I am not trying to be divisive, but please lets be honest. As for immigration, yes reform is very much needed. Building a wall or using Minute Men is wrong, I should know, I live on the border. What we should do in severely punish those who hire illegals ( I mean severe punishment) and without jobs,most will not come. The majority are not here for a free ride ( as many believe ) or are the root of all crime ( as I have heard Rush and Beck say). The majority are looking for the American dream as did our ancestors (unless your Native American). With that said,we have to have limits and stopping the illegal hiring of illegal aliens will work, we just need to be serious.

Was I the only one who read the USCCB's statement that in any way, shape, or form, they neither participated nor knowledgeably joined in the “So We Might See” letter against Limbaugh et al? They appear to be as surprised as the rest of us at being included in this travesty.

Charity begins at home. It's time we start respecting our bishops as successors to the Apostles, despite their real or imagined flaws. Give them always the benefit of the doubt for we bash them at our peril.

-Theo

Its not what you say, it is what you know your words are intended to mean. Ann Coulter calling Obama by his middle name is clearly to play on the anti-muslim sentiment by many in OUR country.

So, Barack can use his names but others can't. Gotcha.

You can bury your head in the sand but its the truth.

Even if I did bury my head I could still see the double standard.

If you feel the Republican Pary is inclusive, just take a look at the demographics.

I live in Fl and I am registered as an NPA (No Party Affiliation). I could not care less about whether or not the Stupid Party is inclusive or not. "Inclusiveness" is a false goal erected so as to drain the Stupid Party and The Evil Party of any Constitutional or Moral Principles.

I am not trying to be divisive, but please lets be honest. As for immigration, yes reform is very much needed. Building a wall or using Minute Men is wrong, I should know, I live on the border

A wall makes for good neighbors. I should know, I live in Florida.

The majority are not here for a free ride ( as many believe ) or are the root of all crime ( as I have heard Rush and Beck say).

Two different drunken Illegal aliens have smashed into and totaled my son's car two different times. Other than first hand experience, I am well-aware of well-documented studies that reveal as mythology what you are here asserting.

And,you have never heard Rush or Beck say that illegal aliens are the root of all crime.

I find your attitude and accusations flat out racist.

The majority are looking for the American dream as did our ancestors (unless your Native American).

I was born in America, ergo, I am a native American. Far too many invaders of this country are trying to steal the American Dream and in doing so they will destroy America. I have neither sympathy or tolerance for them. I am in favor of treating them as Mexico treats invaders from their south.

....And to anyone else who got to the truth of the matter, instead of playing to partisan hysteria. The disrespect of our Bishops is disconcerting, and those who style themselves "Traditionalists"....inconcievable. There is a right way to talk about and to a Bishop, and a wrong way....and in th IC combox, the wrong way prevails, sadly.

I see all too often whiffs of the Americanist heresy in our public discourse, the belligerent Libertarianism that has given Rome problems over the centuries.

St. Thomas More should be our example here....how he reacted to King Henry VIII. He was loyal to his king...even as he laid his head on the block.

Hi Rolando,

As a proud Catholic American Latina woman, I must say that you need to thicken your skin. The confederate flag means different things to different people, and people are allowed free speech in this country (currently).

Our people are just as racist as any other. My mother is very light skinned and my father was dark olive. It was hard for me growing up in my own family because I had dark hair and eyes and much of my family was fairer. I heard the comments, although well-meaning from my mother, wishing that my eyes were lighter and commenting on those in the family who were lighter were prettier. The older people in my family hated black people, even if they were hispanic (Puerto Rican, Dominican, etc). This was very wrong, but we all know how sinfulness works, and we all try to learn from the mistakes of others, if we are wise. Needless to say, these childhood experiences helped me develop thicker skin than you now have.

Just because you don't agree with someone or you think they are being racist does not mean that you have the right to take away their right to speak just because you are offended. If we allow for this, our rights to speak about the sinfulness of gay sex and abortions will be taken from us. We may be jailed because of our crimespeak. Do you truly think that our bishops are really thinking this through?

St. Thomas More should be our example here

Don't forget Cardinal Bishop Martyr, John Fisher too. Both More and Fisher were martyred because they remained faithful to The Pope.

If only The USCCB followed them in being faithful to Rome.

Rolando,

If you watch Mexican TV - let me know when you see darker skinned people who aren't portraying maids, criminals or idiots.

When reading Mexican periodicals, let me know when you see anyone darker than Salma Hayek hawking products.

When listening to conversations with latinos regarding small babies, tell me when they don't speak about children "lightening up" or equating their beauty with the color of their skin, hair or eyes.

In order to remove the splinter from others eyes, we must first remove the plank from our own.

With the sins of my people in mind, I always try to look further into what is being said when I originally get offended. We all have biases, but we also, as Americans, have worked very hard to move beyond using these biases as a basis of denying opportunities.

I have listened to Rush Limbaugh on ocassion. He is not "my cup of tea", but he has never (when I have listened to him) been racist. He is, however VERY ANNOYING

Deal,

Your statement: "That the USCCB is supporting an FCC investigation of Limbaugh and presumably the other talk radio hosts mentioned by Reverend Guess caught me by surprise."

Having received a response directly from the USCCB, it did not sign on to any such request or letter. As written by another writer, the USCCB asked for an inquiry on hate speech, something completely separate from the Limbaugh matter or case. This hornet's nest condemnation of the USCCB is unjustified here and you need in justice to set the record straight. You should do your own investigation before writing such an article.

Thank you.

I attended a two day conference for senior Insurance Company executives in NYC, that concluded today. One of the speakers was Ben Stein, an economist and Jew.

During his talk to several hundred executives, Stein told a offensive joke about a Catholic priest and a boy in a confessional. Rather than slugging the guy, I walked out and prayed.

Hopefully, a good Catholic wouldn't even think to do something similar, towards a rabbi, but we know what the reaction would be, it he or she did.

Should people like Limbaugh & Stein be censored? Maybe the best response is just not to listen or do business with them.

I don't disagree that the USCCB has done some things that have caused an eyebrow raise, to put it mildly....HOWEVER, that does not excuse the contempt and attitude towards our Bishops that have been displayed here and elsewhere. To use an example I put forth frequently: Pope Paul VI is not high on my list of favorite Popes...but I would kiss his ring just as surely as I would Pope St. Pius X...or render the same respect to the most liberal Bishop....a respect that is glaringly absent in these comboxes. One can criticize the USCCB...I find some of their actions to be objectionable...but come on, people...I see the same venom that NCR or Commonweal types direct at the Pope. It's ridiculous.

USCCB Did Not Join FCC Petition on Hate Speech, Spokeswoman Says Washington D.C., Oct 26, 2009 (CNA).- The Department of Communications of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has said it did not join a petition to the FCC which called for discussion over “hate speech” and its alleged role in violence. Some critics of the petition have cast it as an effort to shut down radio show hosts like Rush Limbaugh.

The Department of Communications told CNA on Monday that they had sent their own letter noting the “serious constitutional and regulatory problems” associated with regulating alleged hate speech.

The So We Might See Coalition, of which the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (USCCB) Department of Communications is a member, had organized a letter to Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski. The letter and its related petition asked the FCC to open a “notice of inquiry into hate speech in the media” and to update a 1993 report on the role of telecommunications in hate crimes.

The coalition said it is concerned about the possible connection between “hate speech” and violent crimes. It commented that immigrant, minority and religious segments of the population are often targeted by hate speech before being targeted by physical hate crimes.

The letter noted a June 2006 incident in which four teenagers posed as federal agents and asked two Mexican men for their green cards. The teens then beat and robbed the two men, accusing them of stealing jobs from U.S. citizens.

The coalition letter then noted that the incident occurred after radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh called Mexican immigrants a “renegade, potential crime element that is unwilling to work.” The letter did not indicate any connections between the teens and Limbaugh.

It warned that hate crimes against Hispanics have been increasing, claiming that electronic media have a strong influence on children and teenagers because they are not yet fully developed cognitively.

In a Monday e-mail to CNA, Secretary Helen Osman of the USCCB’s Department of Communications said that although the USCCB is one of the groups in the So We Might See coalition, the USCCB did not join the petition.

“USCCB shares So We Might See's general commitments to improving access to broadband among the under-served; to reducing violence in all media; and to reducing the excess of advertising in children's programming. But USCCB does not join in every action of the group, as in the case of this petition.

“In any event, we are certainly not participating in any campaign to censor any news organization, program or commentator,” she added.

Osman provided CNA with the USCCB’s own letter to the FCC to open an inquiry into hate speech. Such a notice does not result in any new regulations or action by the FCC, she pointed out.

“One reason we are eager to see the inquiry opened is that it will present an occasion to alert the FCC to the serious constitutional and regulatory problems associated with regulating hate speech,” Osman explained.

The USCCB’s July 29 letter to the FCC, signed by Osman, noted the “difficult constitutional and regulatory questions” raised by potential action against hate speech.

In the USCCB’s view, a forum opened by an FCC Notice of Inquiry would help discuss questions such as:

“Depending on the definition of hate speech, would expressions of religious teachings be deemed hate speech? For example, would Roman Catholic teachings on marriage or homosexuality be deemed hate speech by some gay rights advocates? Similarly, some religions may deem the religious beliefs of others to be hateful, but when, if ever, should that characterization bear legal significance?”

The USCCB expressed support for “a broad public forum” in which to debate such issues in “a respectful manner.”

The So We Might See National Interfaith Coalition for Media Justice includes the USCCB’s Department of Communications, the United Church of Christ’s Office of Communication, Inc., the National Council of Churches, the Islamic Society of North America, Presbyterian News Service, and the Communications Services of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.

I am not responding to my Bishop personally. I am responding to The USCCB. There is a huge difference.

It does appear The USCCB continues to be part of the "So that we might see" coalition but it did not sign onto the specific petition attacking conservatives.

That so many thought that would have been perfectly in keeping with their clear and present dangerous courting of the extreme left is, by itself, revealing, no?

The left has been attacking straight white male Christians since I have been alive and I have yet to read of The USCCB petitioning anyone to investigate the Christophobia and Christian-hatred that those sickos pump-out every single day.

Look, if they are going to flee from orthodox Catholics to bunk with the left you are going to wake-up covered in lies.

The USCCB refuses to clean-up its act. It refuses to disengage from the cultural left. It continues down the wrong path and even when those they throw-in with lie about them, they do not appear man enough to denounce the liars in their own coalitions.

The USCCB ought to sever the relationship with these cultural totalitarians.TODAY.

Do you think they will?

Look, if they are going to flee from orthodox Catholics to bunk with the left you are going to wake-up covered in lies.

Look, if they are going to flee from orthodox Catholics to bunk with the left, they are going to wake-up covered in lies.

I want to know if the USCCB will push "So We Might See" to investigate Bob Griese for that hateful taco comment he made over the weekend about Juan Pablo Montoya. If we’re going to investigate hate speech, let’s get serious here!

For the record and in context, Rush's comment was specifically about people the Mexican government would be glad to see leave so it would not have to reform its own system, people who would put pressure on unjust government officials and policies. I noticed the UCC's treatment of Rush fits their own definition of "hate speech." From the So We Might See website:
Categories of hate speech:
* False Facts consist of incorrect, exaggerated, or de-contextualized facts.
* Flawed Argumentation is rooted in hidden assumptions, guilt by association, and appeal to fear.
* Divisive Language creates and/or encourages an “us vs. them” mentality.

Father Fitzpatrick, are you kidding? Are you actually a priest, or are you a pseudonym for a Republican hack?
The budget was busted under George Bush.
People were tortured under George Bush.
Families were affirmed under George Bush, but only if their thoughts were in lockstep with Republican propaganda. If not, or if they expressed any honest dissent, their patriotism was called into question, along with other, darker insinuations.
You're allowed to have political views as a priest, but for using the rhetoric you just used, you should be ashamed.

Is this the point where we should begin listing all the passages of the Bible that, when read over the radio, would count as hate speech?

And do we start with quotes from Jesus?

Isn't this essentially what he ended up being tried for, allegedly inciting violence among people with his speech acts?

Do any of you here understand that the Catholic Church, founded by Jesus Christ, is in eclipse? It has been so ever since John XXIII was elected in 1958. It is only now that these Judeo-Masonic infiltrators are truly rearing their ugly heads, and making themselves known to the world for who they are! John Paul II has said that Christian tradition never stated that ownership of private property is a right - that collectivization is the way to go! Now, Benedict XVI, in Caritas in Veritate, says that economies should be regulated by the United Nations!!! These infiltrators are pushing all of us towards one-world government! That's why, now, the USCCB is calling for investigation into "hate crimes" committed by Rush Limbaugh - they want to do away with anybody who dissents from their agenda! Remember the words of Our Lady of La Salette, "Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of Antichrist." These men are all antichrists! They HATE true religion, and are working furiously to push all of us into an atheistic, communist regime! We need to pray the Rosary now more than ever, and cultivate a deep devotion to Our Lady's Immaculate Heart!

I'm not sure Father's wording was the most artful, but I think we should take his commments charitably. Priests are not often in a position to comment on Church policy, particularly administrative and financial, without fear of repercussion. I know for a fact, and many other parishioners across the country know, how much work our priests put into collections and fund-raising to support the broader church, including the USCCB, while their own parish funds are stretched and strapped.

Sadly, we've put many great priests in an impossible position, trying to serve their communities while raising substantial sums of money for administrative Catholic needs. Can you blame them if, when they think of the cost of that beautiful USCCB building and huge staff and political programming, that they sound off a bit?

I take Father's comment in the context of many off-record comments I've heard from priests who are frustrated and feel unsupported in promoting the teachings of the Church.

Now Archbishop Chaput has come out with a clarification saying that the USCCB did NOT sign on to this petition.

The USCCB must learn not to partner and cooperate with cloaked evil, but then to be able to properly discern the spirits one must dwell completely in Christ; not with one foot dangling in the world as well.

But many still operate under the "birds of a feather flock together" or "who you hang with is who you are or become" addage. And the fundamentals of human nature do not change.

So evil has found a way in this present time to interweave among the compassion issues it's insideous poison.

March 27, 2006

LIMBAUGH: One of the puzzling things about this to me, since President Bush has been in office, is his -- you know, he had a very close relationship with [Mexican President] Vicente Fox, and I don't --

CALLER: Right.

LIMBAUGH: I don't -- I -- I think the opposite of what you suggest is actually what's been happening. But look at it from Vicente Fox's point of view. I mean if -- if you had a -- a -- a renegade, potential criminal element that was poor and unwilling to work, and you had a chance to get rid of 500,000 every year, would you do it?

CALLER: Right.

LIMBAUGH: Yeah.

This sounds more like Bush administration\Mexican Government "bigotry" to me!

It's amazing to listen to the "people on the streets" recycle urban legends and breath taking reading it on IC.

Remember the words of Our Lady of La Salette, "Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of Antichrist."

Mary never said that. Those words are part of the condemned "message" of LaSalette.

http://tinyurl.com/ygg5gzs

If you think that Rome means The Catholic Church, do you think Jesus would establish His Church and then let Satan take control of it?

The idea is patently absurd on the face of it. It goes against, literally, every single promise Jesus made,

http://tinyurl.com/8mdzy

http://www.infidelsparadise.com/?p=5809

It always puzzles me why people waste their time writing drivel like this. Because tens of millions of people tune in to Rush every day, and have been doing so for over 20 years, they know that he does not spew hate and does not purvey lies. Such accusations are like spitting into the wind. What's the point? Why keep screaming a false accusation against someone, when the proof that it's a lie is available daily on 600 radio stations?

Of course, it no doubt makes you feel better for a moment. And no doubt it fools a few people who choose to believe such accusations.

CHRISTIANS ARE "WATCHMEN ON THE WALL." AS SUCH, OUR OCCUPATION CONSTRAINS US TO WARN THE HOI POLOI OF THE PARTICULAR SINS THAT ARE DRAGGING THEM DOWN TO HELL---THAT THEY NEED TO TURN AWAY FROM EVERY SIN AND OBEY GOD'S MORAL LAWS SO THEY CAN BE FORGIVEN AND REDEEMED AND GAIN THAT GLORIOUS ETERNAL LIFE WITH JESUS.

IF IN OUR PURSUIT OF THIS GOD-BESTOWED DUTY WE ARE REJECTED, TREATED WITH IGNOMINY, EXPELLED, EVEN IMPRISONED OR EVENTUALLY PUT TO DEATH, WE WILL HAVE FULFILLED OUR DUTY TO THE ONE WHO LOVES US AND GAVE HIS LIFE IN OUR BEHALF.

MAN-MADE RULES AND LAWS? WE WILL SPEAK OUT CONCERNING SIN AND RIGHTEOUSNESS WITH CLARITY AND FIRMNESS, IN LOVE--REGARDLESS OF THE CONSEQUENCES TO OUR OWN PERSONS---SOME WILL TURN--OTHERS WILL TRAGICALLY GO ON TO DESTRUCTION.

WE MUST PRAY FERVENTLY FOR THE 6 GIGA LOST PERSONS IN THIS WORLD THAT THEY MAY BE SAVED AND COME TO A KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH AS IT IS FOUND ONLY IN JESUS CHRIST.

I AM YOUR SERVANT---DR.VB

So much for the bishops being the "successors to the apostles." I have a hard time envisioning Sts Peter, Paul or others collaborating with Rome to silence commentators. St Thomas Beckett opposed the King and was martyred for it. Today's Bishops have no such punishment to fear but bow before the Emperor. So sad...

Are our bishops actually supporting this so-called "investigation"??? Or is it just those who work for the bishops but are actualy "Catholics in Name Only"? Whatever the case, our bishops need to WAKE UP and CLEAN THEIR HOUSE of these Obamatons! This is more than ridiculous -- It is downright FRIGHTENING!

This is yet another demonstration of why the USCCB should be disbanded as a conglomerate of petty, ineffectual committees lording it over clueless bishops.

This is not surprising! Church leaders thought it expedient to appease and support Hitler too.

The USCC is a corporate legal construct -- In grad school our teacher (now under consideration for Canonization by The Church) Ven Fr John A Hardon SJ once read us the USCC constitution and they completely renounce all ties with the Holy See !!! Read side by side with the historic document whereby the Anglican bishops rejected Rome and the Vicar of Christ as Head of the Church (making an adulterous English King (Henry the 8th aka VIII) the "Head of the church of England" (I guess they thought Christ only came to redeem the English !!!)

Anyway -- Rush H Limbaugh III is the MOST articulate and substantive DEFENDER of the Roman Catholic Church in the entire WORLD ! The USCC on the other hand, has a LONG record of formal (and perhaps material) schism with the Holy See -- and this has been well documented by Roman Catholic laity, Religious, RC Newspapers, and other sources throughout the USA for more years than I can count... USCC activities (as noted in sworn testimony before Congress in the Congressional Record by Bishop Fulton J Sheen's great US Communist convert, Bella Dodd (Sheen's cause for Canonization has also been introduced in Rome ... I hope Bella Dodd's is also introduced at some point !) ... USCC activities include a great majority of UNAMERICAN activities, i.e., promotion of the Socialist Internationale / Communist Agenda within the "US church" ...

All NCCB bishops are required to belong to the USCC so (as Ven John A Hardon SJ would say) you have perhaps 9 Bishops in union with the Holy See ... a bunch of really confused fence sitters that blow in the wind and are scared of their own shadow, as well as their "brother" bishops and whatever "the consensus" and "peer pressure" and "media" will say about them ... despite Christ's and His Vicar's command to "BE NOT AFRAID" ... and then you have the Bella Dodd "infiltrators" whose agenda is to DESTROY the Church.

Read Michael Rose's : "Goodbye, Good Men" -- and [Fr] Ronald Tangen's letter to THE WANDERER of 1970 to understand some of the consequences of what Bella Dodd predicted in her testimony before Congress.

USCC !!! ??? on April 22, 1970 ALL the Bishops of the USA in a USCC declaration ABANDONED their DUTY as Leaders of the Church on the matter of ABORTION ON DEMAND. A statement was made by the USCC that everything that needed to be said on the matter had already been stated by the UN Declaration on the Child.

We did not hear PUBLIC statements (or Parish sermons for that matter) from bishops, pastors or priests on the MORTAL sinfulness, the EVIL to child, mother, father, siblings, family, neighbors, nation, society and the world -- of abortion, contraception, sodomy, divorce, and so one UNTIL Pope John Paul II came to the USA and publicly declared for everyone to hear "NO CONTRACEPTION" ... "NO ABORTION" ... after that infamous April 22, 1970 USCC proclamation !!!

So --- if the USCC is now following the LIBERAL, Communist and Socialist Internationale Agenda of HATE RUSH SPEECH ... it already has the BLOOD of Christ and ALL the countless children aborted and contracepted-aborted (The Pill aborts, etc, etc, etc ...) on it's bloody, sacrilegious and consensus stained hands.

I don't think it will come as a surprise to Roman Catholics in the USA that the USCC has joined the attack and HATRED directed against Rush H Limbaugh III.

BUT "Be of Good Cheer" ("In the world you shall have distress but Be of Good Cheer (have confidence) for I have overcome the world." [Jn 16:33])

In response to the second poster.....
I find Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and the rest of them to be passionate about this country. As for appealing to the lowest common denominator, I would agree that there is a 'baser instinct' within each of us that binds loyal audiences to these gentlemen. It is not, however, the emotions of hatred or anger that you suggest. It is, in my humble opinion, the emotion of love - and a deep passion for freedom that flows from it - that binds people to these men.

Give me a break!!! Do you people even sit down and listen to Rush, or do you just take snippets of his show and twist them. Rush is not a hateful speaker. He speaks the truth and you people hate to hear the truth. I am Catholic and I attend church.My question to you is, Where were these Bishops when children were being raped by Priests? Where were they when Priests and Cardinals were being named in these sex scandals? They were scurrying to cover things up, that's where. Cardinal Law was given a position at the Vatican in Rome and our Catholic leaders did nothing. Why don't these Bishops start cleaning up their own house before judging others?

The Catholic Bishops would do well to understand exactly what they are doing. It's bad enough they haven't told the USCCB "no thanks" but to then be considered a part of a transparently political attack under the disguse of super PCism is very dangerous. They are part and parcel of whatever the USCCB decides to do so the only option is to opt out. Failure to do so simply labels them apart of the uber left which will continue to be a scandal to the faithful.

C'mon Ted, don't we have enough Black Legends to deal with here?

Gee...Thanks, Melinda. I didn't realize that by listening to Rush to educate myself about gov policy that that made me "the lowest common denominator." Thanks for setting me straight on that.

Now that I have read some of the comments, I believe that Deal Hudson was wrong to says that the USCCB is "partnering" with this Obama front group "So We Might See" and I was wrong to condemn the USCCB. Clearly, they are being used (which seems to be the MO of the Obama Administration). In the least, perhaps Mr. Hudson's sounding the alarm will cause the USCCB to make a public statement decrying the shameful way that "So We Might See" has twisted their participation in the FCC's program and they will not be so gullible in the future as to believe that ANY attempt by this Administration to police the media would include protection of religious speech.

Wouldn't it be curious to know if the four teenage attackers even listened to Rush's comments on the radio as the supposed trigger to the criminal event, or have any of the four ever listened to Rush. If so, wouldn't that be a surprise. Teen perpetrators are not exactly the average Rush Limbaugh listener. Obviously, the USCCB is a political organ of the left. If the bishops ever had a listen to Rush, they would never makes themselves look silly and foolish as they are so doing. Maybe they don't have enough to do.

As a Catholic I am deeply disturbed and disappointed by the USCCB decision to join this utterly biased action. I do not write in defense of Limbaugh or the other (conservative) talk show hosts, rather I write in defense of free speech - however outrageous! The recently signed into law "Hate Bill" will, unfortunately, promote many more such suits. While Congressman Grayson is allowed to speak despicable lies and assign a notoriously evil name to a female lobbyist - the left-wing liberals (including many church groups) choose to look the other way. Casting mud and other dirty epithets at Conservatives is, apparently, acceptable in today's society - just don't dare tread on illegal immigrants, homosexuals or any "perceived minority" - they have become sacrosanct. I say they are people just like me and deserve all the respect and consideration accorded to all of us citizens. Why does any one group need special legislation that suffers the rest of us to withhold honest judgements.

Since when does telling someone to jump off a cliff mean you are the reason they jumped off? People make up their own minds to do things. This "investigation" is idiotic on it's face. I also doubt Rush said what they say he said. These idiots are notorious for twisting things he's said to support their baseless accusations against him. Again, it wouldn't matter if he said what they claim or not. The individuals who broke the law will be punished as they should be and hopefully these "investigators" will be turned away immediately. This is nothing more than yet another attempt by the left to destroy anyone who disagrees with them and has an audience. What has happened to the Catholic Church?!

I find the story of the Passion & Crucifixion terrible violent. I am reporting the Bishops to the FCC for their violent stories and hate speech.

The American Bishops need to be very careful that they don't get pulled into the national attempt to socialize America. There are so many issues the Bishops should have gotten involved in and didn't why start becoming another arm for the Obama administration attempt to remove any and all opposition (whether vocal or physical)? The Bishops should have taken a very strong stand on high profile folks receiving communion after divorcing and remarrying. Did they make a STRONG STAND against Obama speaking at Notre Dame? No - they are not strong and vocal when needed. If they are foolish enough to become an extension of the attempted Obama administration mind control approach to government - what is going to happen to the American Bishops when this regime is voted out of office and it will happen eventually? Looks like they took another wrong turn.

This appears to just be another standard page out of the liberal playbook. When someone commits a crime against a person that falls into the liberal protection group (gay, illegal, or non-white) they immediately throw out what the real cause was and they target a popular conservative (pro-life, pro-military, and pro-freedom of speach advocate) and try to blame them. You can not have free speech and hate crime police co-existing. Anyone can turn anything around to accuse someone or some group of hate. The bible can be quoted to support just about any stance on any subject. How many cults have been started and flurished by a misguided so called preacher quoting the bible? Too many to count and it's still happening today.

If you want to pin this on Rush or any other prominent conservative so ahead and try.

I always thought of your group as being on our side, the conservative pro-life side, sadly I was mistaken.

The USCCB and the Catholic Church in general is now a business,and there actions on this Investigation into Rush are an obvious attempt to placate the only part of the American Catholic Church that is growing. That of the (I'll say it)illegal alien population. They will support this investigation so they can go back to the congregration and say "see we support you", just before they pass around the collection basket. The Churches position on abortion and gay marriage alone should preclude them from supporting any party, group or politician who support these issues on any other issue. It is exactly this kind of hypocracy that have driven people like me who believe in Jesus Christ, away from the Catholic Church. Wake up Bishops,the reason for your dwindling congregrations and therefore political influence is your willingness to ally(prostitute) yourselves with politcians, parties and or groups when it is profitable for you rather than standing firm in your beliefs. Nuff Said

Abe Foxman and the Jews at the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith are the ones behind these hate crime bills. ADL is essentially a branch of the Mossad. The ADL wants to criminalize Christianity:

www.truthtellers.org

www.realzionistnews.com

www.iamthewitness.com

It is a sad day in Church/State relations when our Catholic leaders would even consider such left-wing tactics against the very people who are in many ways more Catholic than most of our Catholic political leaders. I wonder how many unborn children died because of the "hate speech" of the late Teddy kennedy or John Kerry? How many elderly people will die prematurely because of Nancy Pelosi's euthanasia bill?

After the Vatican came out when John Paul II was still alive and proclaimed to the Jews that their covenant was 'still valid' and that they were alright to wait for their Messiah - that they were correct in rejecting our Lord Jesus Christ, the second member of the Most Blessed Trinity and Triune Godhead - then I wonder why people who call themselves Catholic should be surprised at anything leftist or modernist apostatical these other hierarchical clergy do. They negate their very reason for existence by their own behaviors. The scripture clearly states that those who do not have the Son have not the Father. That includes those who call themselves Jews. This is Catholic truth, no matter who manages to get themselves in a position of 'authority' and claims otherwise. Or if you disagree with that then I guess you can call St. Paul's letter to the Hebrews, or even our Lord's comments about not putting new wine in old wine skins as completely insane.
It is obvious what is going on here - St. Paul called it the Great apostasy. Our lady at LaSallette said Rome (and by association, those under her leadership) would lose the faith and become the seat of antichrist. Even the Douay Rheims bibles from the 1500s claim this, fr. E Sylvester Berry's book from 1921 on the Apocalypse claims this, etc.
I agree with the people who made the comments about Limbaugh, Beck et al being neocons - both democrat and republican parties (with few exceptions of people like Cynthia McKinney, Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul, to name a few) support the new world order and one world government of antichrist which is emerging and which will have a one world religion of masonic ecumenism and syncretism where everyone is equal which the pre vatican II popes called practical atheism. Bella Dodd told the truth. These people are NOT working for the social reign of Christ the King but rather the social reign of antichrist.

Mr. Guerra: Are you prepared to respect the diversity of others? Other people hold views which you do not. Why is that a problem? Do you, perhaps, presume a racist intent on the part of others which is not there?
-Why is it offensive to you for Beck or Coulter to call Obama a racist? Maybe he is a racist. I was offended by his statement about the Cambridge cops, to cite just one example.
-Obama uses his middle name himself. Where is all of this anti-Muslim sentiment, anyway? I see no sign that Muslims are fleeing America in fear.
-Some people with southern ancestry fly the Confederate flag as a symbol of their region and heritage. As an Irish-American, the Irish tricolor serves the same purpose for me. Perhaps you have an ethnic flag with which you identify?
-You shouldn't find "tough immigration talk...demeaning." Such talk is entirely legitimate and long overdue. Most countries do not let people just walk across their borders. We already have very permissive immigration laws. It isn't too much to ask people to abide by them. If you don't think we have very permissive immigration laws, compare ours to those of another industrialized country, such as Japan.
-I think if you actually talk to "ultra-conservative Republicans," your fears will be dispelled. Several of us have attempted to reassure you on this very board. If your view of us was true, wouldn't we instead just insult you and be done with it?

Has the USCCB signed on with this petition? I dont think so. And no article that brings this up has any link to its petitioning with So We Might See, or any church group. The USCCB denies it, so until i hear from them otherwise it remains doubtful. I'm tired of false reporting and the backlash of hate that stems from it. The USCCB has no beef with Rush Limbaugh.