This is a perfect example of why organizations should practice what blogs and message boards call for: sticking to the topic.

The USCCB joined So We Might See for specific reasons, and had some legitimate concerns, in both directions, about the "hate speech" thing (I'm quite pleasantly surprised you got the response you did).

When an organization is founded for a specific purpose, it should stick to that specific purpose, It's OK to issue position statements on other issues, but when an organization becomes too diversified, the original cause gets lost, and the leadership tends to become somewhat Sophistic.

Boiled down to its essentials: The USCCB signed on with So We Might See because So We Might See is a lefty outfit, and must therefore be good. Now, as happens routinely with the CCHD, the lefty outfit turns out to be REALLY lefty, so there's going to be lots of back-pedaling and CYAing and a few more "clarifications." In a few months, the USCCB will be discovered to be embarrassingly enmeshed with some OTHER lefty organization, and the dance will begin again.

Deal,

I must say I appreciate that these two blog posts represent what I see as the new presence of "the press" in the workings of a free society.

While this exercise is clearly Catholic in flavor, the issue and the USCCB's response is very much what I have always thought the role of the press in our culture was to fulfill.

Here we have what appears to be a good-intentioned partnership whereby the more "famous" or "substantial" partner finds itself having to answer for the radical positions of the lesser or more obscure partner. This situation is - dare I say - "Alinskyesk" - the subversion of a reputation for the purpose of propelling a cause.

I have noticed that the USCCB doesn't really take itself seriously enough, in a fashion. The bureaucratic impulse to "join up" with seeming partners in the world of "advocacy" only manages to muddy and mute the authentic voice of the Church in our culture.

That is why authentically Catholic voices like Archbishop Chaput, Bishop Finn, Archbishop Burke, and some of the other more notable Bishops of our day seem to stand out in starkness against the flaccid statements of the USCCB.

I had to laugh upon reading this: "...the USCCB petition in no way reflects the attitude expressed on the So We Might See Web site..." Then why even affiliate with such an organization? Did Ms. Osman and the Bishops not thoroughly look at the organization before forging any kind of partnership? The USCCB is a sufficiently recognized and well-known organization capable of issuing its own statements and making its own enquiries before the FCC regarding "hate speech." I should think there is no need to join some other organization, especially one of this type. The sad thing is that the mainstream media will most likely portray this as "The Catholic Church" joining forces with So We Might See, thereby implying complete agreement. Clarification, yeah, right...

Johnnyjoe, the USCCB was very responsive to my questions. Although not all my questions were answered, there was specific indication of how they were handling the problem of "So We Might See."

Deal,

I think this is yet another example of the internal "advocacy" bureaucrats at the USCCB stepping beyond the scope of the true role of the Church in the culture.

I went to the "So We Might See" website, and interestingly enough, the "coalition partner" title given to the USCCB is "U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops, Office of Communications assists the bishops, both individually, and collectively, to take advantage of the opportunities offered by the communications media."

It gives me the impression that the "Office of Communications" is perhaps stepping out of role, eh? Of course, this has always been the problem with the USCCB. We have individuals speaking for a "collective" of bishops that is hardly EVER unified in voice or direction. Such is the problem of having this strange mish-mash of "Conference Thought" - when individuals step into relationships under the guise of speaking for the whole group.

The Left, when in power, has often used the term "Hate Speech" to refer to any speech that they disagree with. At Universities, we have seen speech codes enforced, which consists of conservatives being silenced, while the Left gets to say what they want. If you say that you disapprove of homosexual acts, this is twisted into you hating gays. Tons of criticism of the US, the Church, Western Culture, etc are shovelled, while any disagreement with this nonsense is stiffled.

The Bishops of course, want to sand against prejudice toward minorities, violence towards minorities, homosexuals, etc. This I can understand and applaud. But, they must not venture into a trap set by the Left whereby they end up endorsing views that will end up coming back to bite them, such as the business about gay marriage.

Whenever the Bishops get involved with groups who have a Left Wing agenda, they get burned. They need to stay away from those people. Ditto the Ring wing as well. The Bishops should be officers of the Church, not political operatives.

"SO WE MIGHT SEE?"
WHAT A MONIKER AND MISNOMER FOR AN ORGANIZATION THAT IS TOTALLY BEREFT OF THE KNOWLEDGE AND ENLIGHTENMENT OF JESUS CHRIST, AND WHOSE PURSUITS SEND THE VAST BLIND MULTITUDES OF THIS WORLD PLUNGING OVER THE UNSEEN CLIFF TO THEIR ETERNALLY AGONIZING APPOINTMENT.
CATHOLICS: COME OUT FROM AMONG THEM---DON'T PARTNER IN THEIR EVIL---THIS IS BLATANT UNEQUAL YOKING---FRATERNIZING WITH THE ENEMIES OF THE CROSS---RATHER THAN EXERCISING OUR TOTAL AND ONLY TASK OF WARNING THEM OF THEIR PERILOUS POSITION AND COMMUNICATING THE FOGIVENESS AND SALVATION AND ETERNAL LIFE FOUND WONDERFULLY AND ONLY IN JESUS CHRIST---NEVER-ENDING JOY.

IF WE DON'T SHOUT THE TRUE GOSPEL MESSAGE TO THEM AND TO EVERYONE, THEIR BLOOD WILL BE ON OUR HANDS, AND OUR FATE WILL BE THAT OF ALL UNFAITHFUL SERVANTS.

LET'S DO OUR DUTY---CONSTANTLY AND PASSIONATELY-------DR.VB

Whether or not this is true is irrelevant as very few people will know what the truth is. What they will be aware of, however, is that the USCCB is listed as a partner with an organization that is going after specific individuals on talk radio on a charge of "hate speech."

In the everyday world this is transformed into yet another political club: "See, what your side says is hate speech. That's what the bishops are charging." I've had these debates in various forms and they all end up the same way: if an organization has any association with the USCCB its positions are taken as - literally - gospel, the Teaching of the Church.

It may not be what the bishops intend, it may be irrational and invalid, but it is an effective argument for anyone looking to justify his personal political inclinations and de-legitimize that of his opponents.

Observing the public endeavors of the U.S.C.C.B over the past three or four decades, one has to agree with Fr. Fitzpatrick.

This outfit always ties to the portside and you can go to the bank that they are manuevering to be of future use to our political left.

The needs of secular liberalism are conflated with the requirements of Faith, especially since 1965.

As to the "demonization" of Mexicans by talk show hosts, did anyone ask for, or supply specifics?

The only description I've heard used by those criticizing our "three monkeys" policy regarding enforcement of immigration law, is "illegal alien"!

This "reply" reeks of the ambiguity which undergirds unorthodox and leftist positioning. Another sad "fruit" or tendency established by Vatican II.

The ease with which traditionalists always end up blaming the Second Vatican Council for all the ills of the church never ceases to amaze me.

The fact that many USCCB staffers lean to the left has nothing to do with Vatican II and a lot to do with sin and willful ignorance in just the same way that Trent or Vatican I cannot be blamed for the disproportionate number of Antisemites and Holocaust-deniers in the so-called "traditionalists" ranks.

I suggest that "Carlist" and the likely minded stop casting stones for they are not free from sin.

-Theo

A telling expose of this attack on our free speech by deep-pocketed leftist foundations, with the willing cooperation of worthless, overpaid church bureaucrats speaking instead of (not for) ministers and bishops: http://tinyurl.com/yknhrvd

The bottom line: Religious leftists want to protect the right of people to violate our laws by sneaking into our country, to collect public benefits (health care and schooling), and add (once they're amnestied) to a pro-abortion socialist voting majority that can seize our property and change our culture.

And they want to make it illegal for us even to complain about it.

Welcome to the Netherlands West.

I am happy that our comments seem to have made a difference with the USCCB. This is good news. We must continue work in a respectful manner (which contrary to some opinions posted here at IC, I believe most of us do)to keep our shepherds' eyes focused on tending to the sheep.

It is very easy in our world to let positions of power get to our heads and become a means to sinfulness. It is no different for our Bishops, as they are just as human as the rest of us.

Let's keep the pressure up and the spotlight focused on our Bishops (as well as prayers, first and foremost), so that they remained focused on Holy Mother Church.

With the bishops and the USCCB, it seems the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing ... or maybe it's just bad cop good cop ... or then again, maybe a shell game.

This fits in perfectly with the bishops' subsidiary role as an adjunct of the Democratic Party and its agenda -- funding ACORN, reflexive support of every jot and tittle of political correctness, etc., etc.

It’s depressing and dispiriting, to say nothing of embarrassing to be Catholic under these circumstances.

of the names of all the INDIVIDUAL bishops who are in support of this action of the USCCB.

As I have said elsewhere, the USCCB has been hijacked by Statist, liberal, progressive, dissenters from the faith who are operatives of the Left and who seek to advance their own political agenda. And the bishops are too busy administering their own dioceses to provide any meaningful insight into what these people are up to.

My solution: Move all offices of the USCCB to Topeka KS, Tulsa OK, or Billings MT and the problem will be solved. The Beltway is a cancer!

Deiterich von Hildebrand (b. 1889) is quoted as saying, "Faith purifies reason." Well, maybe once upon a time, but not when you have dictatorial relativism constituting the pervading census among the USCCB. Von Hildebrand had fought against relativism since the early age of 14; well before he embraced Catholicism in 1914 at the age of 25.
"Persuasive witness" to the Faith is the the sole remedy; he surmized.

Sadly, many of our bishop-apostles have most certainly lost their "first Love" and have replaced Him with some idolatrous politically-based ideology or leftest group upon which they now make discernments & decisions. Unfortunately, the same window that Pope John XXIII flung open in the Church to allow the refreshing breeze of the Holy Spirit to enter more fully...simutaneously seems to have allowed in the soot of New Age and other destructive ideologies; plus fresh fuel for Modernism, as well.

Jesus is objectified truth incarnated; personified.
There is no room for compromise and tolerance concerning revealed Truth; in fact, tolerance is the opposite of Truth because Truth stands for something concrete.
Compromise with "the evil hidden among the good" ends up chipping away at the foundations of the Faith. Like a previous responder said, and "becoming unequally yoked with evil." Confusion is from the anitichrist.

It is helpful for spiritual discernment to remember that first and foremost the Christian reality upon Earth is that we are Church Militant in the midst of a ferocious spiritual battle for the mind and that evil is carried out through people.

Is the headline correct? Has the USCCB clarified its position? or was this done by one Helen Osman? Who wrote the communication issued in the name of the USCCB?

Have any bishops had a say in this? How many? Which?

Theo:

One shouldn't be amazed at the ease with which Traditionalists find the post first session papers and their interpretations at the bottom of the Church's half century of problems.

An astute student of the Faith and its doctrines need only to reacquaint himself with doctrines asserted in prior Councils and pre 1958 Papal Encyclicals to see the drift.

I would particularly recommend that you peruse those of Pius X (the only canonized pope of the modern era) and Pius XI to see the drift Rome has taken from the orthodoxy established over two millenia preceding the second Vatican Council.

In effect a decision was made to deal with The Enlightenment on its own terms and not those of the Church. To accomplish this, it was necessary to water down the magisterium to fit in with the new "zeitgeist". The papers were written in a manner to create interpretations of Faith which would blend with,rather than confront the man-centered 18th Century secularism of the philosophes. Solid catechesis and liturgy were the first victims of this approach since they are entwined with dogma.


The staffers currently directing the U.S.C.C.B.'s thrust,whom we both distrust,were selected because of their adherence to this Modernist agenda by Bishops, who in turn owed their episcopates to the machinations of like minded Apostolic Delegates such as Abp. Jean Jadot.

We are paying for this dearly and its distressing to read letters from ostensibly intelligent people with their heads still firmly planted in the sand!

As to the characteristics you applied to a disproportionate number of Traditionalists, I find them replicating the smears and falsehoods from guilt peddling sworn enemies of the Faith who have run their "professional victim" routine into the ground.

In any event a discussion of WWII atrocities and their scope does not define or apply to doctrine. Nevertheless, if you would like to be specific, I'll be more than willing to discuss Tradidionalist positions as compared to those of Non Traditionalists and Neo-Catholics.

I'm looking forward to your response.

Putting everything in caps is the internet equivalent of shouting. I could just as easily (maybe more so) read your contribution if it were written normally. Thank You

Why do we express surprise that the USCCB continues to have incestuous relationships with groups opposed to the core convictions of Holy Mother Church? For decades we have watched misstep after misstep and yet little changes. Were we surprised when the Catholic Campaign for Human Development was exposed as funding groups that support abortion, contraception and prostitution? And yet, come November 22 we will be asked to give from our tithe to the second collection for CCHD. Are you surprised that the USCCB is giving its whole hearted support to climate change legislation? If you are, go to its website and look for this Action Alert from this summer:
"We urge you to call, e-mail and fax your Senators immediately and ask them to act now to address the serious moral dimensions of climate change."
Apparently there is no one at the USCCB that recognizes that population control is the solution and driving force and evil behind the climate change movement. Just read their literature, resources and websites.
The USCCB can speak out against hate speech, support global warming (whoops! climate change), support illegal immigrants and their rights, be against capital punishment but when it comes to speaking out with one voice and silencing those "Catholic" politicians that endorse and support the active slaughter of innocent lives in the womb-the USCCB and our bishops are suddenly defenseless.
It was in 1969, when George Schuyler, the black journalist and Catholic convert described America as "rotting at the soul" and he wrote:
"Depravity once surreptitious and clandestine is now advocated, excused, and publicized: winked at by indulgent authorities, condoned by the highest courts, and blessed by an alarming proportion of an irreverent clergy apparently more interested in ecumenism, street marches, and the Pill than in stemming the corruption of moral rot."
These prophetic words certainly describe America today and the powers that be our own USCCB. Please pray for our bishops, their souls and for the souls with whom they are entrusted by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. May they gain the courage of the martyrs.

I'd really like to know where you get your information. I'm pretty well informed, and I'm not alarmed by any investigations of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or for that matter, Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow.

I've heard the proponents of "hate speech" and "hate crimes" legislation espouse (what I consider to be) naive intentions to rein in those who would use increasingly more powerful communications tools to incite people to rage. In my opinion, the unforgivable part of Rush Limbaugh's and Glenn Beck's entertainment shows is that they operate in the political arena. On the other hand, this is America, and it's their right to do so.

Consider this: how outraged would you be if there was a widely available media outlet, say a basic cable channel, that broadcasted only hard-core pornography 24 hours a day. At the bare minimum, you would feel as though you were witnessing a debasement of the human character. Probably much more so than you do now. You would be outraged that such filth could be shown on your TV.

It's important to remember that many of us, and I am one of them, feel very strongly that we are witnessing the equivalent of hard-core pornography every day, and unfortunately much more so on Rush Limbaugh's show and Fox News rather than on MSNBC.

This is our country. We are a vastly diverse people, with incredibly complicated sets of different, interlocking needs and priorities. Governing America is an immensely difficult task, and to shout out simplistic slogans and/or conduct political discussions by impugning the character, motives, or honesty of the "other guy" is simply unacceptable.

But this is America, and they have that right. And for as long as those with a soapbox purvey pornographic political rhetoric to their audiences, there will be those on the other side of the fence who will work to shut them up.

GW,

I hope you read LEM's comments or at least pick up one of Dietrich von Hildebrand's many books on relativism. When wrong is no longer wrong and right is up to interpretation we are in big trouble. We have MSNBC for the liberal mind, we have FOX news for the concervative thinker. We all should have EWTN for the Catholic believer. Unfortnately even there us Catholics seem to justify what we will believe according to our political affiliation more than our Catholic beliefs. So goes the term "Cafeteria Catholics" I love what Father Corapi says, what is the favorite color of Satan?: grey. The color grey and relativism have alot in common. Don't you think?

GW,

This is just your opinion. My husband loved MSNBC and for a while, it was on our TV while I made dinner every night. I witnessed so much hate by both Mr. Olberman and Ms. Maddow during the time I watched them that I would whole-heartedly disagree with your opinion.

Granted, as I have mentioned on previous posts, I don't like Limbaugh or the others you mention either. I do believe, however, that they have a right to posit their opinions as long as there are those who want to hear them and will pay for their air time. According to our constitution, they also have the right to speak their minds at any time.

The way we stop this type of media is by not watching, listening and, if you are really angry, starting boycots and letting your anger be known to the sponsors of these programs. Hate crime bills are not only unneccessary, they lessen our freedoms under the first amendment as well as create a super-class of people whose opinions and wishes are greater than those of others.

Christine and Laurie,

I don't understand what you are trying to communicate in your posts.

Of course what I wrote is purely my opinion. If I didn’t have something to say, I wouldn’t write.

But I also write because I seek to understand.

The word "relativism" seems to be used as an accusation when I ask questions of those on the right wing. I've also heard that veiled warning before about Satan's color being grey. (Father Corapi is correct).

If you’re wondering, here’s an example to illustrate what I seek:
Before the war started in 2003, I listened to Fox News, CNN, and other personalities on the radio and watched them on the TV. I wanted to learn. I was looking for the evidence proving that we needed to send our army into Iraq. I was uneasy and unconvinced with the evidence, until Colin Powell went to the UN.

On the other hand, I was even more uneasy when, as they were faced with (what I considered to be) genuine questions regarding the need for and the conduct of the war, I heard Fox News and talk radio pundits respond by impugning the questioners’ patriotism and support for the soldiers.

Am I falling into “relativism” when I ask for someone who is in a position of power in the media to use their voice to educate their audience? Am I falling into “relativism” when I say that I firmly believe that Barack Obama and those around him are not evil people who are bent on destroying our country? I don’t often agree with him and them, but I don’t believe they are evil.

(And for the record, I don’t believe that George Bush is evil, either. I think he is an unfortunate man who was in a critical position but who didn’t have the talents or the assistance he needed to meet the challenges he faced).

I'm also not a shill for Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow, but their shows originated in a large part as a response to the propaganda of Fox News and others on the right wing. Their shows continue to be successful because they counterbalance the destructive rhetoric of the right wing.

Our government is us, and our politics are our communication. When we seek to improve people’s lives, we assume a duty to lead them into areas of knowledge and growth. When our politics consists of lots of name-calling and mud-slinging, it’s impossible to lead anyone anywhere. We can’t solve the issues we care about by discussing how the Democrats are Satan’s party.

We have to come together, and in the current state of affairs, I have no idea how that will occur.

Regardless of what side it comes from, left or right, "hate speech" is bad, but shouldn't be illegal, due to our first amendment rights under the constitution, as well as directives from our pontiff regarding human rights and the freedom of religious expression.

I will repeat, I have watched Olberman and Maddow, and regardless as to whether they are "counterpoints" to Fox, they still spew intolerant and hateful things. Being a counterpoint does not make it any better, or else Fox would be absolutely correct in what it does because Glen Beck has scooped the other media outlets recently with true news that had been neglected by other mainstream media sources. Does this make his rantings any more worthwhile? Additionally, does it make MSNBC or any other news source worthy of being taken off the air? I don't think so, as long as they have a market, according to our first amendment rights.

I am for the protection of our rights, and I will support these hateful individuals against hate legislation, as this legislation will inevitably take away our rights as Catholics to say anything that is considered hateful, e.g. not supporting gay marriage, abortion or euthanasia.

"I'm also not a shill for Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow, but their shows originated in a large part as a response to the propaganda of Fox News and others on the right wing. Their shows continue to be successful because they counterbalance the destructive rhetoric of the right wing." - GW

GW, do you really believe that the history of political correspondence began in the 1990's? The truth is that Talk Radio and Fox News were a "response" to the left wing monopoly of all things political. CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, NY Times, Time, Newsweek etc. etc. etc. were in the tank for all things liberal/Democrat.

It's so funny that the liberals control 90% of information sources but obsess like little drama queens over the 10% that offer a different (read not extreme left wing) perspective.

G.W.
You said that we are a vastly diverse people with complicated needs and priorities. The problem is that your definition and my definition is blurred today by "my right to believe the way I want to believe". Where does truth come in? I mean real truth? Homosexuality, abortion, the war, all have different truths to different people. Thus comes the relativism. You looked at the coverage of the war and you saw what you wanted to see to justify your opinion. I probably did the same.
Watching specific t.v. channels and listening to specific talk show hosts only enhance your point of veiw. Please tell when the news on MSNBC. CNN, ABC,NBC, CBS, New York Times and even Fox to some extent have not had a political bias in their reporting? TRUE news is no longer being reported
I think your impressions of Barack Obama are what you want to believe in stead of what the truth really is. I think this right to believe the way we want to believe has introduced grey into areas that are purely black and white. Abortion is wrong in all scenerios. But is that really presented today.? It is not presented in our secular society and unfortnately it is even blurred with some of things the bishops convey in their writings and actions.

Thankyou Mr Hudson bringing this issue to our attention.

We are blessed in the United States to have shepherds who are voices in the spiritual wilderness in this present western culture.

Although there are some sheperds who may want to take the time to reread articles # 675- 677 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

To these shepherds...... Please.....we need you!!!!! please help us, who are trying to hang on because we believe in the One holy Catholic and Apostolic Church that Jesus died for.

Sincerely,
Charlene

Your analogy connecting porn and Limbaugh is preposterous and offensive to boot. Isn't this the kind of extreme speech that you're complaining about?

I heard this very comparison from a prominent Democratic Senator not long ago and there will be more of this nonsense.

Here's the thing: Say Limbaugh decides to move his show to the internet. He cancels the radio show, and his internet site is immensely popular, breaks all records, is more influential than ever. Now what to do?

They would go after him there too, no doubt about it.

Porn already does dominate the internet - it's there if you want it, 24/7. It is a billion dollar industry. It has advanced to the degree it has with the help of policies put forth by the left - the very people who now want to shut Limbaugh down. Do you not see the irony?

It is becoming more and more apparent that the USCCB is an organization run by Left wing democrats; mostly ex priests and ex nuns who want to change the American Republic and make it more like Cuba. I refuse to donate any money to USCCB charities as long as they continue to be political. Please donate money to the local parish ministries and local community charities which actually do something for the poor and do not support ex Catholics who are looking for an easy life within the socilistic bureaucracy of the Americanized Kennedyesque catholic church. Look to Benedict XVI for spiritual leadership not the Kennedy family.

Would you (meaning anyone here) support Public Health Care if it was:

A.) Affordable (meaning it would keep us in black ink)
B.) Sustainable (plenty of workers paying in)
C.) Pro-Life

I would answer that question with a yes.

(Note to D.B. above: my answer is A.) yes, B.) yes, and C.) yes)

Laurie and Meg, I really appreciate your responses. We’re not that far apart. I’m pro-life, just as you are. I’m also lifelong Catholic, as I’m assuming you are as well. I’m also not a young man, and I’ve been involved in government at the local level all my life, and in different parts of the country. I consider myself nonpartisan, although I lean more Right than Left. I’m not a fan of political media, either.

I’m sharing those few details just to provide some understanding of my perspective.

My comparison of Rush Limbaugh and porn is neither preposterous nor offensive, at least to me. I understand that it might be your opinion, and you’re welcome to it. And for the record, I find both porn and Rush Limbaugh to be offensive.

But I’ve periodically listened to him over the last 25 years (sometimes in other media and occasionally entire shows, because I had no choice, as those who I was with had his show on the radio), and I can promise you that no one is more offended by pornography than I am by Rush Limbaugh. I find him to be clichéd, to be offensive and insensitive to others, and most of all I find him to be treating something that’s very important (the process of government) like garbage. In other words, to everything that you find offensive about porn, I can find a similarity in Rush Limbaugh.

(By the way, I don’t know which Democratic senator made this comparison. I can assure you that I came up with it myself).

“Bias” in the media will always be there so long as those who write the news are human beings. Where we differ, I’m sure, is that where bias was formerly something that editors and political writers kept to the Editorial and Op-Ed pages, it’s now in full flower and permeates completely the newscasts of Fox News and MSNBC. It’s more limited at MSNBC (what the hey, it’s my opinion).

You think the Left has designs on shutting Limbaugh down? That’s a fiction, created by Limbaugh himself. Don’t let that guy do your thinking for you. The Democrats don’t have the capability.

The truth, Laurie, is that abortion is wrong in all scenarios. I wrote that Barack Obama is not an evil man, and I believe that.

And before you respond by saying something like “he embraces the evil of abortion,” you must first look to the shameful record of the Republicans during their last two presidencies, both manned by Bushes. They took our money and support and delivered only a few measly changes that limited a few abortions. If you want leadership on this very difficult issue, you won’t find it among the GOP, although they’ll take your money.

Those children are dead because we didn’t stand up and hold our politicians accountable.

I'm not a listener of Limbaugh's and I'm not a kid anymore so no one does my thinking for me. But thanks for your concern. :)

You say you are a lifelong Catholic so maybe if you look at this from that standpoint you will understand my point better.

The point is, pornography is as pervasive as it is because freedom of speech/expression laws were used for it's advancement and gave it the license it needed to proliferate. The idea was that *even something potentially harmful* should be supported by these laws because the principle outweighs that harm. You feel that Limbaugh is harmful and therefore undeserving of freedom of speech. But you compare him to an industry which continues to enjoy all the benefits of that same freedom of speech, yet has caused untold harm.

This isn't about talk radio for me. Do you understand that hate speech laws aim to limit even what parish priests can say from the pulpit under threat of arrest and/or jail time? This is no fantasy, it's already happening in Canada. Hate speech legislation has sweeping ramifications; don't get bogged down on the Rush Limbaugh aspect.

Look at it this way: The principle that helped make the pornography trade the billion dollar industry it is today is now being revoked in the name of hate speech and the Catholic Church will suffer. The *ideal* of freedom of speech/expression is suddenly not so important anymore; we need to examine why the left would compromise so completely on something that was so important to them just a few decades ago.

I never watch TV anymore because I find 99% of the material, as in your words, "cliched, insensitive and offensive". So take a page form my book and don't listen to what offends you.

But don't unwittingly pile on with people who seek to tear down the Church. It's the last stronghold of morality we have in the world.

Meg,

It wasn't my point that Limbaugh should be stopped. I'm simply raising awareness, in this arena of mostly Limbaugh supporters, that there are lifelong, faithful Catholics who find him to be as offensive and harmful as the most destructive types of media.

You accuse me of "piling on" with those who would tear the Church down, although nothing I've said has come anywhere near "piling on." Rest assured, however, that I don't take offense. I'm used to having my motives and my intelligence questioned.

I've also written before that hate speech laws are pointless and naive. At the same time, you say that no one does your thinking for you, and in the next breath you allege that hate speech laws are directed at Catholic priests? Just because something happened in Canada?

When will we Catholics resume our rightful role - the conscience of this nation?

When will we demand of our elected officials that they govern - and I mean really govern, rather than mouthing empty accusations against the opposition party?

Doesn't it bother anyone that an engineer has to work their tails off for only a 4 year science/math based degree, and then has to apply that same science and math to acheive success, while we will elect anyone to Congress who talks the correct talk?

When will we demand that our elected officials talk like adults?

I firmly believe that if Jesus Christ was to return to Earth tomorrow, he would judge us harshly for wasting our time worrying about a silly hate speech law and how to stop the political opposition rather than trying to construct a society that takes care of the least among us.

And I'm not talking about simply outlawing abortion!

G.W.,
I am so tired of the argument that The Republicans just take our money and do nothing about abortion. If you recall in both Bushes administrations the majorities in the house were slim or not filibuster proof and than were controlled in the same ratio by the Democrats. The truth is that if people voted completely against a politican because of abortion, homosexuality, embryonic stem cell research, all by the way viewed as intrinsic evils by our Church, this issue would not be a platform issue in either party for or against. That is my point about relativism, we decide truths according to what we want. Democrats will say social justice is the just as important issue as abortion. No it is not. These people have gotten to breathe, to walk, to talk, and make decisions for themselves. The unborn
has none of these options. It is our responsibility to help the poor, we should not turn over the responsibility Jesus asked of us, to a political system. As for the evil Rush Limbaugh, give me a break. This man has been on the radio now for 20 plus years. He does not insite riots, he speaks his opinion. He is definitely biased, but he has an opinion just like you doesn't he? I like Rush on some issues, some issues I totally disagree with, especially when they conflict with my faith.If Catholics followed their faith more than a political party real change would take place.

You underestimate Canada's role here. The current administration is working on two key issues right now, nationalized health care and hate speech/crime legislation. Canada *already has* nationalized healthcare and hate speech/crime legislation in place. Canada has served as a blueprint for talking points, etc - a recipe for success, so to speak. The results are observable if you would just take the time to do a little research. The Church is suffering in Canada and will in turn suffer in the U.S. if this legislation is passed.

It was not at all clear from your posts that you don't support hate speech legislation - re-read them and other's responses to you. You made a very crude analogy and left it at that. It would have been helpful if you had followed up your analogy with something that clarified your actual position. Hence my concern that you were unknowingly piling on.

Your insistence that this issue is "silly" reveals how poorly informed you really are on this topic. I believe you have good motives but as a faithful Catholic it is your duty to support the Church when it is potentially under fire.

Laurie and Meg,

Is the "argument that Republicans just take our money" all that old? I've never heard anyone in the pro-life movement say it.

Did I say that Rush Limbaugh is evil? I find the man to be grossly offensive, and I used a "crude analogy" to make the point. He calls himself an entertainer, but so does [you name the porn star]. Government service is a very honorable calling; he throws mud around it.

And the "Canada" thing? Talk about ridiculous - give me a break. I consider it silly BECAUSE I'm well informed on the topic. Don't quote propaganda like it's the truth.

Sooner or later, if we are really to abolish abortion, we're going to have to couple pro-life legislation with a significant expansion of government services to take better care of the least among us. Right now, we have to admit that the Left is correct when they say that the Right is only interested in protecting human life before birth, while afterward you're on your own.

Now go to your corners and prepare your best Socialist accusation against me. That nagging thought in the back of your mind won't go away, though: you know I'm right.

Wow G.W.,

Your humility is overwhelming. All you have done is present your biased opinions. Where are your facts? Rush Limbauagh has a particular philoshpy/ideology that you are opposed to that is really the whole story. To compare him to a porn star is too foolish for me to debate. It is a silly analogy that no one but you could take serious.
To think the government will solve the problem of abortion is a opinion that I will never share, whether a Democrat or Republican sits behind the Oval Desk. The hearts and minds of the people have to change. Maybe what some in the pro-life movement are doing by showing the graphic effects of an aborted child could be the beginning of a real change. When people saw pictures of black men hanging from trees in the deep South, people were more alerted to the problem, Civil Rights was recogonized as a serious problem by many. Our problem is the media will not show these graphic pictures. It is not a pretty sight to behold, but I think many would be convinced a real CHILD was murdered and not some blob. If Jesus thought a government would take care of morality I think he most certainly would of come here as a politican rather than a poor carpenter. Our government has become more secularized by the day. There is no way they will take the iniative to change policy without the support of the people. If good Christians would just come together on certain issues, such as abortion, homosexuality, contraception, etc., real change will take place.
A great example is Uganda. It is the only African country that their aids problem is actually going down. Why? Because their solution was abstinance rather than using condoms. Their behaviour changed rather than putting a bandaid(condoms) on a problem. To come full circle, and get back to the original idea of this article, what the bishop's should be concentrating on, should be address. I am afraid that political ideology has effected their point of view as well. There are real truths in this world, and they are suppose to be represented in a clear and concise manor by our church. Obviously this is not taking place, or we would not be having this conversation in the first place. God Bless.

You say you're a right-leaning faithful Catholic who is knowledgeable on the subject of this thread but a lot of what you write fails to support this claim. I still believe you have good intentions, although your tone leaves much to be desired at this point.

A couple of things:

The honorable calling of government service has been destroyed by the politicians themselves, not by any single entertainer. Washington D.C. may even surpass Hollywood in it's level of immorality and degradation. Your focus on Limbaugh is unjustified if that is your basic problem with him.

On Canada, re-read my post: I said *even* what Catholic priests say will be targeted, not that they were the principle target. Ordinary citizens are mostly being targeted, in general Christian business people, by the gay community.

But Canada aside, this legislation will have sweeping, long-term ramifications for all Americans. Many people poo-pooed the abortion issue 35 years ago, just like you are doing on this issue, and look what has happened. People thought abortion would be rare - it was unthinkablethat it would become tantamount to birth control, but that is exactly what has happened. Many sat back and watched abortion rights expand, not able to comprehend the serious far-reaching consequences of letting the most basic of human rights be cast aside.

So, yes, your passivity on this issue is very disturbing to me - although life is our most fundamental right, another important right is being cast aside, and the lives of all who want to freely practice religious faith in America may well be hindered in the end. Are you willing to risk that? "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

These laws are superfluous at best, as you already know. Realize that there may be an evil intention behind them that you aren't seeing, or a serious long-term negative affect that might not seem plausible to you at this moment. God bless.

You fail to recognize, Mr. Hudson that in your last article you falsely accused the USCCB of supporting an FCC investigation of Limbaugh and presumably the other talk radio hosts and that it caught you by surprise. Correction, you recognized it but glossed right over it and turned it into another issue. I am ashamed of the way you seem to want to cause division.