Coast to coast, LA to Chicago...
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.
I could post parallel criteria against the RC’s . . . particularly some.
hostile, trolling, outrageously titled and stated RC posts and threads virtually 24/7.
You don’t hear us whining anything remotely close to the RC whines.
You're bothered because Catholics get to post threads on FR, and you're bothered because you don't like the titles, and because we can post anytime we want?
My, my.
Hogwash.
I could have said very similar things from our perspective against yours and your contenders.
Say what!?!
Catholics are permitted to post threads?
To all contributors: discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal. If this thread becomes a childish spitwad battle, it will be locked.
I stuck with the real lyrics.
How should a Catholic respond to the 1,000th. reference to our
“idolatrous, blasphemous Magnificent Magical Earth-Mother Marian dogma”?
= == =
1. Consider it par for the course when such opposing sides get going
2. Consider it laughable
3. Shrug and pity the poster
4. Consider the source
5. Forgive and go on
6. Trust God to have perfect perceptiveness; perfect love and perfect justice to deal with it in His way and His time
7. Understand that in a complex world and the context of FR, such will routinely go on . . . and that the RC’s are NOT in charge of defining FR nor the rules nor the criteria of FR . . . that we all have an OPPORTUNITY TO SUPPORT CONSERVATIVE GOALS AND VALUES and that DEMANDING conformity—even regarding how RC-ism is approached or contended with is simply NOT THE RIGHT NOR ROLE OF THE RC’S HEREON any more than it is the right or role of GAMECOCK OR QUIX to define such.
8. . . .
The RM made his perspective known on that score a long time ago and repeatedly since.
Of course the RM registers it as mocking.
Nice to see a Biblical, sane, wholesome, humorous, thick skinned response to such thin-skinned silliness.
Thanks.
Your wisdom and sanity on this is greatly appreciated and noted.
There you go again, tweaking us with a 2x4, pretending it’s all in good fun and no feelings were hurt.
Forgiveness follows repentance.
I can’t find a single phrase in your response that resonates in the least
remotely accurately
to anything I said.
Aye.Aye.
Thought I was contributing such.
Sigh.
I think my assertions about . . . relative . . . slaps . . . so to speak . . . have been proven in the last 25 or so posts.
I’m NOT faulting you in the least. I think you are doing most admirably with an impossible task.
I just challenge the other side to look at the record in the last 25 posts and then more honestly in their mirrors.
Let's look at the last 25,000 posts in the Religion Forum. Larger sample-sizes are always better.
I believe you have it backwards...
For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.
- Romans 5:10
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.