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 have stated it perfectly. Many thinaks to you.
Good example of iconoclasm, and the falsehoods that arise therefrom.
sitetest
thinaks= thanks————
Blame it on zerissenheit :-)
I should add that there is no doubt at least one Catholic in this world who, through improper catechesis, ignorance, etc. does worship Mary. But they are committing a mortal sin in the eyes of the Catholic Church and should be counseled to stop immediately. This too is the teaching of the Catholic Church, and demonstrably so, and in no event should that behavior be conflated with veneration or honor paid by other Catholics. None of this is anything that cannot be handled by Catholic posters and as far as I'm concerned should not be proscribed.
1. Cathoics worship Mary.
2. Mary was not ever-Virgin
3. Cathollcs blindly follow the Magesterium.
4. Deliberate distortion of words calculated to inflame:
i.e. “Magicsterium”
5. Catholics pray to and ask the intercession of dead people
in opposition to scripture.
6. Holy Scripture refutes Catholic beliefs
There are plenty more.
I understand what you are saying here. I also think a re-read of #168 and its reference to the Mystical Body very well expresses the position in which Catholics on this forum find themselves. If they respond they are labeled whiners, perceived as “thin-skinned” and—God forbid—believers in and bearers of a lying, corrupt and evil religion.
No wonder Catholics feel the “personal” in the attacks on the Mystical Body of Christ, of which we are members.
That is the "anti" position in the religious debate town square. If you are suggesting that no Freeper be allowed to destroy the beliefs of another then you are indeed arguing for an "ecumenic" style of discussion.
Yes.
Pot-kettle-black
You’re here? I’m gone.
Nevertheless, there are quite a few highly articulate and competent Catholic debaters.
But is the solution to make Catholicism "untouchable" - beliefs not to be spoken in public, in the town square? Or is the solution to do away with the town square altogether and go to ecumenicism?
See ya
***************
That's not what I want, but rather that the RF be treated more like the other forums, with spamming and trolling not accepted.
I agree. I think that is the very simple solution. It doesn’t have to be any more difficult than that.
Once “spamming” and “trolling” are as clearly defined as “potty language” and “personal attacks”, things could/should/would get (somewhat) better.
Some Freepers evidently believe the statement is true. And they will continue to believe that statement is true until you become "iconoclastic" and destroy that belief with reasoned "open" religious debate.
In an ecumenic format, the statement could not be made - or if made, it could not be rebutted, only removed.
And they will continue to derail other Catholic threads with it, no matter what the original topic is. That's trolling, demanding an off-topic debate. Then add "Mariolatry" and "magicsterium," and the thread, no matter what the religious topic, is effectively ruined for serious discussion of the original topic of the thread. Can you not see that? It happens nearly daily around here.
Back to lurking.
"Spamming" is when the poster posts the exact same thing, over and over again.
"Trolling" is when the poster goes from thread to thread, picking the same fight or carrying the same argument from thread to thread.
"Stalking" is when the poster targets another poster specifically and follows him from thread to thread, needling him.
"One note Johnny" is the poster who has no other contribution to the forum than the same thing he keeps saying although perhaps with different words, graphics, etc.
Would you like to have a middle ground between “open” and “closed” threads? Something like “no sidebars?”
No one's stopping them from posting a thread on that topic (or any other), rther than acting like opportunistic viruses on other threads. I've stayed off the religion forum for months at a time because sometimes it seems like there are no discrete threads (anyway Catholic ones) -- just one long, repetitious continuous loop!
“By ‘iconoclastic’ I take it to mean ‘attempting to destroy the beliefs of others’.”
If by “attempting to destroy the beliefs of others,” you mean to use reason, evidence, facts, logic, to show that one's belief is superior to another, more likely to be true than the others, to intellectually eviscerate the other fellow's beliefs, oh, heck no. I'm all in favor of that.
But if by “attempting to destroy the beliefs of others,” by resort to mocking, ridicule, derision, emotionally attempting to degrade what is holy to others, direct, flamboyant disrespect for, to “tear down the icons” of what the other holds holy, then, yes, that is the iconoclasm that I mean.
Are you saying that the purpose of the Religion Forum is to mock, ridicule, deride, emotionally degrade what is holy to others, direct, flamboyant disrespect for what the other holds holy?
If you do, then you make my point for me.
If that is the case, then the Religion Forum is inherently anti-Catholic in its rules.
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.