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.
You're on the right track, but I think that it goes deeper than that.
sitetest
Why don’t you negotiate among yourselves what the guidelines for the Religion Forum ought to be and then get back to me? I cannot make any promises, because I do not make decisions in a vacuum - but it would surely help.
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.
*******************
Agreed. When discussion becomes taunting, insulting and bullying, it should be clear to us all what is really going on here.
Exactly.
You said: Why don’t you negotiate among yourselves what the guidelines for the Religion Forum ought to be.
Good suggestion. A VERY difficult task. But an opportunity to improve the forum.
“Why don’t you negotiate among yourselves what the guidelines for the Religion Forum ought to be and then get back to me?”
Why would we bother?
“I cannot make any promises, because I do not make decisions in a vacuum - “
But that's what you're asking from us - to negotiate, essentially in a vacuum.
I'm reminded of the quip that one shouldn't expect to negotiate successfully with another party if one is negotiating amongst one's own party.
The problem here isn't that we need to negotiate among ourselves, but that you haven't really demonstrated much interest in the underlying problem. When the moderation here becomes interested, then it's possible that it might be resolved.
Until that time, we're just shoveling against the tide.
And folks like pgkdan, who is thinking of no longer contributing financially to this site, are more common than one may realize.
sitetest
******************
I don't believe this is the solution most/any of us are suggesting. Many of the posters who most offend are longtime members of FR, and I would hate to see them banned. Some actions are already off-limits on the Religion forum, such as bad language, but these usually receive a warning and deletion of posts. As far as I know.
Well said. If the RM can’t tell a troll post from a regular post, no negotiation on our side will help.
I agree with every word of this post. And that’s why it has become easier and easier to either not log on to the forum, or-—to skip past a lot of the posts that are repetitious in their nature, unnecessarily long, offered in size and color from ordinary posts, offer sermons instead of commentaries on the subject matter, and posts that never deviate from the same mantras. The posts I am referencing are almost exclusively from FReepers who show an open dislike or contempt for Catholicism.
Also, I agree that now there is a much more limited number of posters, that the ones who do post are the almost daily “regulars” which indicates to me that a kind of stagnation has taken place.
For me, the Religion Forum has proven not to be the best stewardship of my time.
The same could be said about "potty language" but that seems to be effectively moderated.
Well said.
Ok, then. Can you come up with a list of “lies” which should be prohibited in “open” religious debate?
For the life of me, I don't know why supposedly Christian people cannot accept their natural allies in the Catholic and Mormon churches.
Do you have a list of "potty language" or do you moderate it as you see it?
The problem is non-Catholic posters coming on RF threads with
troll posts, repeating the same anti-Catholic diatribes on every Catholic thread.
I would be happy to ping you to some.
“Ok, then. Define the ‘underlying problem’ as clearly and specifically as possible.”
I'll try. But work with me. I'd rather have a dialogue on this than a long and boring monologue. I'd rather that you try to make an effort to understand what I'm trying to say, even if I don't say it that well, rather than for you to try to pick it apart. REAL dialogue isn't waiting for one's interlocutor to stop talking so one can say your piece, especially to refute the other.
I think that at the core, the problem is one of iconoclasm.
That, I think, probably oversimplifies it, but I don't think by much.
Catholicism (and Orthodoxy, as well), are not iconoclastic.
Christian groups generally other than Catholics and Orthodox are inherently, and deeply iconoclastic.
And the rules of the forum significantly favor iconoclasm.
sitetest
I'm not particularly interested in having anyone banned...I'd just like to see a little more even handed treatment and some attempt to understand where Catholics are coming from when we complain about these abuses.
Here’s one: “Catholicism deifies Mary.”
It’s demonstrably not true. A poster should be able to say “it looks like Catholics are worshiping Mary” until the cows come home. It can be disproved readily enough. But “Catholicism deifies Mary” is a lie.
Defining “lies” in this field is difficult, I do not question that. But on one extreme end of the bell curve of truthiness, there are SOME allegations that are demonstrably, objectively false.
********************
Agreed. Trolling and spamming are apparently easily recognized on other forums, so why not here?
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.