Posted on 05/03/2008 6:58:15 PM PDT by Alex Murphy
Bill Donohue may not be tired of the culture wars–or internecine Catholic wars. The head of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights is often over the top in denunciations of anti-Catholicism, real or perceived, and of other Catholics who Donohue sees as not toeing the proper Catholic line. But even Donohue may have outdone himself, and done in his own organization, if his latest press release prompts an IRS investigation.
The May 2 release is “Catholic Dissidents Advise Obama,” and it draws down on Obama’s Catholic National Advisory Committee, which includes several Commonwealers, such as Cathleen Kaveny and Grant Gallicho. It also includes Catholics in public and religious life, ranging from Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania to the Sister of St. Joseph, Sr. Catherine Pinkerton. Also included are more than a few writers and theologians whose work I have long admired. Point of disclosure: I have also known Bill Donohue for years, and while I think he is completely wrongheaded many times, and inimical to the church’s well-being other times, he can also be a good guy to have a beer with, as well as someone who does not run from an argument, and an advocate who can point out indisputable cases of anti-Catholicism that still persist.
That said, this latest blast is way outta line. Donohue not only labels these Obama-advising Catholics as “dissidents” but he says “Practicing Catholics have every right to be insulted by Obama’s advisory group”–setting up Catholics who back Obama as bad Catholics and opponents of Obama, by implication, as good Catholics. Donohue employs his favorite trick of the invidious–and distorting–comparison, saying he wouldn’t have gay advisors who “don’t reflect the sentiment of the gay community”–as if these Obama-backers don’t reflect Catholic opinion. (In fact, they largely do. Not that this should be about public opinion, no?)
In his closing, Donohue takes a real potshot, saying that “If these are the best ‘committed Catholic leaders, scholars and advocates’ Obama can find, then it is evident that he has a ‘Wright’ problem when it comes to picking Catholic advisors.” As if these Catholics–check out the list–are the equivalent of Jeremiah Wright…!
But let me dissect this a bit more analytically. I see four chief problems.
One is that Donohue bases his criticism of these dozens of advisors principally on the “scores” that the abortion rights group NARAL gives some of the political figures on the committee (conveniently not mentioning the presence of Democrats Bob Casey and Tim Roemer, also on Obama’s committee, who have taken stands against abortion rights in many cases). Donohue also states that Obama’s pol pals do not agree with the church’s “three major public policy issues: abortion, embryonic stem cell research and school vouchers.” That is a rather selective list, in that the bishops’ own statement on political participation, titled “Faithful Citizenship,” lists seven principal policy areas, and they include “Option for the Poor and Vulnerable,” “Dignity of Work and the Rights of Workers,” and “Caring for God’s Creation.” Not to mention the church’s opposition to the Iraq War, which John McCain wants to continue.
Indeed, while Donohue has criticized McCain’s alliance with the rock-ribbed televangelist and preacher of standard anti-Catholic rhetoric, John Hagee, he has not brought similar scrutiny to McCain’s own Catholic advisory board.
And that raises the second problem, which was noted by the liberal group, Catholics United, namely that Donohue’s apparent partisanship could jeopardize the League’s 501c3 non-profit status. Catholics United also cites passages from “Onward Christian Solders,” a new book by Deal Hudson–a longtime GOP advisor–that show how Donohue has been active in helping the Bush White House and the Republican Party woo the Catholic vote.
This adds up to a big potential problem for Donohue. Yet it also adds up to a big payday for him. As the League’s publicly-available financial forms show, Donohue takes in a whopping $343,000 a year in salary and compensation. He can rightly claim that he has turned the League from a penny-ante mom-and-pop shop into the $20-million-dollar a year culture war machine that it is. But while few would disagree with fighting anti-Catholicism, I wonder how many will see Donohue as getting rich off anti-Catholicism.
A final point: Pope Benedict XVI, who Donohue spares no effort to defend, even when the pontiff is not under attack, made an explicit call during last month’s visit for Catholics to seek unity, not division. I’m not sure how Donohue’s internecine and potentially partisan sniping achieves that end, or even how attacking other Catholics connects with fighting anti-Catholicism.
No personal offense is intended, but getting hits on a thread is more important than proper moderation?
As for “thin-skinned” — who is thin-skinned around here?
Yes.
You're absolutely right. I'm currently debating whether I will continue with my monthly donor status and continue to post here. I found Freerepublic in 1998 and after a few months decided to sign up in April of '98 because I felt so many of the posters shared so many of my opinions.
It was a couple of years before I ever got into a real serious thread about religion...the Clinton's kept us pretty busy then. But even then the discourse was pretty tame. Here lately, the last 6-12 months,( not that it's new, it's just been really amped up) it's gotten extremely hostile to Catholics. The Anti- Catholicism and hatred expressed by some is just getting to be too much. Now I wonder if this is really someplacce where I belong. Why should I continue to financially support a site where other members are constantly throwing hatred and vitriol my way? f you hate the Church you hate me.
I've been searching for a more Catholic friendly conservative forum...haven't found one yet but I'll keep looking. If any other Catholics feel the same way and are looking too please let me know what you find.
I’d like to know if you find such a place.
*********************
The sad thing is that I suspect most of us aren't looking for a Catholic "friendly" forum, just one that doesn't overlook Catholic hating/bashing posts. Some of the posts I've seen go way beyond discussion, especially when the poster continues to spam threads with the same incorrect information and charges over and over and over again.
Completely agree.
I’ll let you know.
When thin-skinned posters wander into the middle of an open religious debate, the extent of their contribution is "that hurt my feelings." The debate turns to who is bashing what, how people post rather than what they have to say. Abuse reports are made, moderators pinged. It often gets personal and childish. When the warnings are ignored, some posters end up with suspensions and the threads have to be locked. Worse, all the participants end up making their own confessions look undesireable to the onlookers.
I think that your “take” on why things happen as they do is false.
“When a thin-skinned Freeper posts on an open RF thread, the discussion turns away from the issues to the persons involved. He becomes the disruptor.”
Although this explanation of events may apply in some cases, often, this isn't what's really going on. What's really going on is that the rules of the Religion Forum are inherently anti-Catholic.
Not dramatically anti-Catholic. Or even especially overtly anti-Catholic.
The bias is subtle. My own view is that it's unintentional. At least I HOPE it's unintentional. But real. The rules of the forum are designed to best fit non-Catholic posters, and to disfavor Catholic posters. Because the bias is subtle - but pervasive - it's difficult to even articulate it.
I've tried to address this issue both publicly and privately in the past, but have been basically told to "talk to the hand." Thus, I don't generally bring it up. Because of past failures to receive a fair hearing on the question, I won't even bother to lay it out.
However, the failure to address these shortcomings is an on-going problem that will lead many Catholic posters over time to the same conclusion - that the Religion Forum (and perhaps even Free Republic generally - although myself, I think that would be an overgeneralization) is anti-Catholic.
sitetest
It depends entirely on the moderators, to stop it.
*****************
Agreed.
There are many times this may work to the detriment of the Catholic haters, because lurkers may well be repulsed by their venom, but at the same time it may also alienate Catholics from the forum.
Please note the others who agree with me. What are we, n00bs?
********************
Wow. Great post!
As it is right now, the "open" threads are a town square. It is not ecumenic.
And the way that I know I am being even-handed is that every belief around here complains that it is being picked on.
“In effect, you are seeking ecumenicism.”
Not at all.
Just an environment that isn't unfair to Catholics.
“And the way that I know I am being even-handed is that every belief around here complains that it is being picked on.”
You do realize that that's pretty much what Dan Rather said right up to the moment that CBS defenestrated him.
But I didn't say that your ENFORCEMENT of the rules isn't even-handed. To have said that would have been to question your intentions to be fair. I specifically allowed that I believe that the moderators herein intend to be fair. I merely said that the RULES THEMSELVES are not even-handed.
sitetest
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.