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 further contributions from me on this, period. I’m going to stay off the RF threads the way I have been. You just do as you please, I give up.
Not lately — and not for long.
Even caucus threads can be invaded under some circumstances.
Or are you suggesting that vulgar debate styles be treated the same as "potty language" and disallowed on the Religion Forum?
If you see a caucus thread - any caucus thread - being disrupted, ping me. That is not tolerable.
Define “disrupted.”
A non-Catholic posting on a Catholic caucus is a disruption.
However, if the caucus does not object to the visitor, I do not remove the post. The closed door church may welcome visitors. But if they do not welcome the visitor, neither do I.
Recently, I recall reading somewhere here that “legitimate disagreement” was allowed on a caucus thread. If I am mistaken, I apologize. Perhaps others remember this?
If it has been caucused, I will only listen to the thread poster in not pulling non-caucus member posts.
Okay.
“Again, are you suggesting the solution is to ban certain posters because their style of debate is vulgar?”
First, let's not make this so directly personal. Should certain BEHAVIOR be banned? Certainly. Certain posters? I suppose if they find themselves completely unable to abide by the rules, that might have to be done. However, I'm pretty sure that pretty much every poster here is capable of better behavior (okay, there may be a poster or two who aren't capable - so yes, you'd have to ban them).
As to vulgarity - I don't think that's the word I'd use.
I'm not sure one word covers it.
Think about the word iconoclasm: “Tearing down the (sacred) icons.” Think about the history of iconoclasm, the smashing of the holy Christian icons by savage, barbarian Muslims who thought they were doing the will of God (I wish some of the iconoclasts here would have the self-awareness to realize how much they look like barbarian Muslim iconoclasts to many Catholics here.).
Anti-Catholic (and anti-Mormon, as well) iconoclasm happens around here on Free Republic verbally every day.
And the rules permit and encourage it.
It's verbal vandalism.
If someone directs their verbal vandalism at what another holds holy, or if someone regularly derisively mocks what another holds holy, using language devoid of any actual argument, yeah, if they insist on persisting, those folks should be permanently banned.
Why?
Because that's not how conservatives do things. That's how liberals do things, and this is a conservative website, or so I've been told.
Liberals argue by content-free insult, by belittling, by mocking. Remember we're just “bitter”? Remember that Republicans are all Nazis? Remember that Bush = Hitler?
That's how liberals do it - namecalling, the attempt to tear down and destroy without any effort to understand, to persuade, to engage, to reason with the other.
Yeah, I'd definitely permanently ban folks unwilling to change from that sort of "style" (if that's what you want to call it).
But I think you'd only have to ban a small number before folks would straighten up and fly right. I don't honestly think that there are any posters here (well, maybe one or two) who are incapable of withholding the vicious venom. I think they'd adjust.
Remember this:
The rules forbid personal attacks.
Yet, many (maybe most?) Catholic posters here would sooner be attacked personally by another poster than to see the Mother of God attacked, or Jesus in the Most Blessed Sacrament attacked.
In this way, the rules favor those who attack what we hold holy, and disfavor those of us who hold what is holy as more important than ourselves.
sitetest
In this way, the rules favor those who attack what we hold holy, and disfavor those of us who hold what is holy as more important than ourselves.
If the Protestant side can contend for its faith without using vulgar debate styles, would the Catholic side be able to respond without "taking it personally?"
Or is it an impossibility such that every thread should be a "closed" thread. Or ecumenicism only on "open" threads?
Please don’t give up. Your thoughts and comments are valuable to this forum.
“And to some of those on the other side of the fence, contending for the faith (e.g. being “anti” other faiths) is part of their duty to God.”
Guess what? So do we!
And there are Catholics here every day who do just that! I know! I read them and admire what they write.
But by and large, they do it with reason, logic, Scripture, and... decorum.
“If the Protestant side can contend for its faith without using vulgar debate styles, would the Catholic side be able to respond without ‘taking it personally?’”
Again, I'm not willing to use the word “vulgar.” To me, it's not quite on the mark. I'd prefer to say that folks would be required to stop trying to tear down others' sacred icons.
I can't tell you how each and every Catholic will react.
But generally, I don't find Catholics objecting to folks making a case for what they believe (Although it does grow tiresome when the same argument is repeated, unchanged, over and over on a thread, even well after each point is disputed - but Catholics do that, too - maybe there could be a rule that looks for substantial repetition of arguments - after a set number - 5? 8? 20?? - the thread could be automatically locked - just kidding - can't solve all the world's problems in one fell swoop.).(Maybe we could establish a series of numbered threads where we could cut and paste all the arguments made by every major theological party to every major theological question - and when these issues came up, we could just say to whomever made the post - "Go check Religion Forum Master Thread #827." Again - just kidding.)
The problem is rather when what we hold holy is mocked, is degraded.
A separate problem is when we're repeatedly told what we believe, even after we've informed others otherwise. But I think that this is harder to deal with, and I guess the solution to it is, if they're going to lie about us, we'll just have to repeat the truth as often as they lie (removing tongue from cheek).
I do feel like some effort has been made in this regard by banning at least a limited number of smears against different faiths. At this time, I have nothing to offer by way of improvement the current method of handling these cases on a case-by-case basis.
I can tell you this: If I merely had to read a poster misktakenly going on with his misunderstandings about the nature of Mary's relationship to her own Son, Who is God, I shall never press the abuse button again. I may argue with him. I may point out that the One, Undivided Church condemned the idea that Mary is merely the Mother of Jesus and not of God as rank heresy something like 1600 hundred years ago. Or I may just ignore him. But I won't press the abuse button.
But should a poster make an ugly reference to the Blessed Virgin Mary, or seems insistent on making up his own words to mock us and our beliefs, and posts them, reason-free, logic-free, content-free, then that poster should be banned permanently.
sitetest
Well you’ve given me a lot to think about and more importantly, pray about. I’ll get back to you after I do.
I would hope that you would consider to listen to the input of others on these issues. Not everyone thinks or feels as I do, and they may have other concerns, or different takes on the issues from me.
But in any event, thank you for listening.
sitetest
I welcome suggestions and constructive criticisms.
Thank you. :)
trisham
I will do something thinking on it this weekend. I am off to a cabin I am building in north central PA tomorrow, no electricity, telephone, internet etc. Will have some time to contemplate. Truly I say to you (a little Gospel lingo for ya) thanks for listening and for taking on the RM role.
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.