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.
Not at all. Just an end to insulting, trolling anti-Catholic posts being allowed, protected, and even encouraged.
***************
How so?
I disagree with that assessment as well. No matter how 'thin skinned' a poster may be most of us are adults and don't get hurt feelings over honest theological disagreements. Most of the Catholics I know around here have no interest in prosyletizing on FreeRepublic so we typically don't care that others don't share our beliefs and respect for sacred tradition. What we object to are the lies, insults and calumnies that are thrown out all the time. What we object to is the fact that Catholic threads are attacked and muddied up with no consequences paid. When we complain we're assumed to be 'this skinned'.
Amen. There is really little discussion of religion. But insults, for one example magicsterical, are protected and carrried from thread to thread.
In an "ecumenic" format - "anti" positions are not allowed, only "pro" and perhaps an occasional contrast. Poor language, communications or graphics skills do have a bearing - as the level of discourse must be higher. Not every speaker has a voice.
You are correct. The rules are skewed against Catholics. The Church is allowed to be insulted and ridiculed with impunity, which is taken very personally by Catholics who consider the Church much more integral to the faith than non-Catholics who see no role for a church. To Catholics, the Church is the Body of Christ.
Why not limit the number of posts/per day/per poster to say 5? Then everyone would have to think about how important each post is AND everyone would have to spend some of their time in real life.
Let me say first that from what I have seen I would not want to be the Religion Moderator. My career goals did not include working at an inner city playground. But yesterday I did a little test to see how evenly standards were enforced as a result of the discussion on this thread. Linked below is a thread where a clear violation that I had been warned about previously was completely ignored, even after the poster began to get personal. Isolated? Doesn't seem like it as the next thread shows.
To me this is a common occurrence where abusive posts, or posts with violations of rules are ignored...until I do it. And every aspect of Catholicism is open game on every thread regardless of the topic of that thread and what has been discussed previously on the thread.
Funny...on other forums here the mods seem to have no difficulty identifying trolls, disruptors, flamers, etc.
Which begs the question.....
Discussing is one thing; insulting is another. And insults against the Church is making it personal to a Catholic.
Discussion about religion and learning more about my faith and others' is real life.
Now...see, you said you have been here for more than ten years and now you have me guessing!! LOL... Seriously, now that you said that it has made me think a one particular individual who I think about sometimes (and keep in my prayers) that I used to enjoy seeing post that I never see on the religion forums, but occasionally see on the other forums. We hardly ever agreed on anything but he always comported himself as a gentleman... PresbyRev. If that’s you...then I know you moderate with integrity.
“In the ‘open’ town square format...”
You're trodding old ground.
I have absolutely no beef with the idea that open threads shall enjoy an open, even heated debate between posters who present differing views.
The difference between "open" and "closed" threads isn't what's being questioned. The anti-Catholic bias that's built into the rules is.
But you don't seem to appear interested in that.
sitetest
One refreshing example is this post on the Religion Forum where the Admin Moderator was stopping the disruption right from the start.
On a recent trial run for a "respectful dialogue" the very same poster that uniquely took offense at the word "Roman" being attached to the word "Catholic" turned around and used the word "Satanist" on another poster who took no offense at all. What is "respectful" is in the eye of the beholder.
Very few religious disputes can be called "settled." No matter how many times you swear that Catholics do not worship Mary, in the eyes of some that is what it is appears to be. Both sides have a voice, and so the claim is rebutted every time it is made on an open thread.
From my viewpoint, it seems most of the discontent among the Catholics could be resolved by banning a few posters. The same could be said of other confessions and other posters. But I am not inclined to ban a poster because others disapprove of him/her - the poster must earn his own banishment.
In an "ecumenic" format - "anti" positions are not allowed, only "pro" and perhaps an occasional contrast. Poor language, communications or graphics skills do have a bearing - as the level of discourse must be higher. Not every speaker has a voice.
*****************
It was not my understanding that is what Judith Anne is proposing, nor is it my understanding that this is what I or most other Catholics here are suggesting. I believe we welcome spirited discussion, but not the tolerance of "spamming" posts, bullying or insults.
“The problem in open religious debate is that what seems to be a ‘lie’ to one is a ‘truth’ to another, what is an insult to one is not an insult to another and so on.”
No, that's not the problem.
“Very few religious disputes can be called ‘settled.’”
I doubt that many here are expecting to settle religious disputes here.
“From my viewpoint, it seems most of the discontent among the Catholics could be resolved by banning a few posters.”
Rather, most of the discontent among Catholics could be resolved by undoing the hidden anti-Catholic bias inherent in the current rules.
sitetest
“On a recent trial run for a ‘respectful dialogue’ the very same poster that uniquely took offense at the word ‘Roman’ being attached to the word 'Catholic' turned around and used the word ‘Satanist’ on another poster who took no offense at all. What is “respectful” is in the eye of the beholder.”
And that wasn't the central problem of that thread or that experiment. That was a sideshow.
The real problem was that a group of posters denied even the DESIRABILITY of the attempt at “respectful dialogue.” And their intransigence was permitted to trash the experiment.
But I expected no different, myself.
sitetest
Titantites, what you posted may be the core of the issue Catholics have.
As Catholics the basis of the faith are the twin pillars: Holy Scripture and Sacred Tradition (the Church). The basis of Protestant theology is Holy Scripture alone. If a Catholic were to treat the basis of Protestant theology (Holy Scripture) with the same type of vitriol that is used concerning half the basis of Catholic theology (the Church), I would guarantee that the poster would be removed, because I doubt that calling the Bible the Whore of Babylon etc. would be allowed. That person would automatically be labeled a troll and gone.
I believe that is where the double standard presents itself.
And Catholics have great reverance for Holy Scripture and won't be denigrating it like non-Catholics denigrate the Church.
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.