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 post on Catholic threads about once every Blue Moon and when I do, more often than not I'm told to shove off by someone.
Ok, my style is to rub people the wrong way, but I do think that some people need to either get thicker skins or find a Catholics Only Forum where they can post without fear that someone might question either their doctrine, their practices or their sanity.
This is supposed to be an OPEN FORUM. Those who are so easily offended by either challenges or levity, should seek refuge from somewhere other than the Free Republic Abuse Button.
You're misquoting me, Judith. I didn't make that statement; Fichori made that statement in post 431 (and I know you consider yourself a stickler for accuracy.)
This is one of the problems with not discussing the topic at hand, but continually going back and back and back over the same old you said/he said/she said territory.
It gets old really fast, and mistakes are made, as you just did.
AMEN.
"Catholics Only Forum" [excerpt]
I'M NOT TELLING YOU WHAT YOU BELIEVE.I'M TELLING YOU WHAT I BELIEVE ABOUT YOUR BELIEFS, AND WHY I BELIEVE THEY ARE WRONG AND MINE ARE SCRIPTURAL.
It is an odd hobby. I can't imagine spending so much of my time telling people why they are wrong and I am right. Especially, when much of what I believe that they believe is based on misunderstanding or willful ignorance. I think it is all satire. Many of you posters who enjoy tweaking the RC's remind me of Borat. Not everyone appreciated or comprehended his sense of humor. But that is the nature of satire. One either laughed at Borat or mistook him for an idiot of epic proportion.
How very puzzling.
AMEN!
443 posted on Saturday, May 10, 2008 1:10:48 AM by Dr. Eckleburg
I replied to you, in this post #443, in my post 452. You just can't keep it straight. Fichori posted the original comment, but I responded to your "AMEN." If we can't trust Protestants to keep little things straight, why should we think you can do the big things (like interpret Scripture) any better?
Keep defending the indefensible. Apparently it's a habit hard to break.
No reason they can't do both.
Yet the deeper reality was that he was Jewish, pretending to be Arabic, and making fun of people making fun of Jews. the whole thing was a touch bizarre, and not in the least funny, or would you not agree?
Are you really not understanding? I replied to YOUR post. YOU had it in italics.
I guess it's true, then, what I've been told. I didn't want to believe that about anyone...
Show's over, folks.
You wrote --
(Dr E:) Why should they complain about non-catholics posting non-caucus threads?
And you put those words in italics which clearly looks like you are offering a statement I had made.
I did not make that statement. I said "Amen" to that statement. Fichori made that statement in post 431.
Now it's over.
I am here. I enjoy reading a lot of the articles posted here, and think a lot of the comments of posters can be edifying and entertaining....and funny. I am not here to tell others what I think they believe and then attempt to prove them wrong. I would come across as a complete moron, if I did that.
And I said: “That did not happen,” and it didn’t.
ROFL!!!!
Great. That makes two of us. I said the very same thing in the post you partially quoted of mine.
I would come across as a complete moron, if I did that.
You certainly would.
Sorry you didn't see the post. It was posted, however.
then you put what you are quoting in here
And then you quote bothPerson A said thisPerson B quotes person A
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.