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.
A question for the ages?
i>It's called DEBATE!
Wrong! We post our side, you come ridicule, denigrate mock everything you don't understand, and the RM lets you; that is NOT debate.
lol. More Catholic policing of the threads and comments, eh?
From the looks of this thread tonight, Quix has done a great job of fending off the vapid, whining criticisms lobbed at Protestants.
How is a question “policing?”
Notice that real trolls do not like debate. Their true purpose is to harass and cause havoc on a site. They really just crave attention. They add nothing to the discussion, just wait to pounce on whomever comes along. They are online 24/7, showing that they have no other purpose in life.
Catholics define what Catholics believe. You're not required to believe it or even like it, but if you redefine it, you are bearing false witness.
ROTFLOL! Where did you learn that farcical definition of discussion?
Hillary?
I posted to Quix. I simply asked if he couldn’t answer for himself. Is that a problem for you?
Of course you're trying to be crude.
roundandroundandround
When you seek to debate what I believe—as in: ‘I believe x’ ‘No you do not’—you have actually rolled far past debate into tyranny.
When you falsely tell me what I believe, it is not debate, it is tyranny.
You don’t decide what I believe, I do.
If I insisted a thousand times that you worship syphilitic dragons, I would be a thousand times wrong.
That is your plan: debate by falsehood and attrition.
I don't see Protestants around here being "uncivil" or breaking the RF rules by making personally offensive comments about individual FReepers.
I see Protestants discussing the issues, while some Catholics feel so threatened by any disagreement with Rome that they cannot debate without flaming the threads or asking for new rules or closing down the forum entirely.
Maybe... a little.
But then your I think that if we were to strictly follow the Religion Forum rules, your Freeper handle probably shouldn't be allowed on the Religion Forum.
But I suspect when you picked it out you were, of course, trying to be crude. :-)
Again, you define "discussing the issues" as falsely telling us what we do or do not believe.
You are as tyrannical as Monsieur Cauvin.
Do you have an example of any of that, or is it just more hot air?
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.