Bill Donohue: Over the line?

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…!

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.

There seems to be a misunderstanding about what a “town square” debate is like. The “open” threads on the Religion Forum have been moderated like a “town square.”

In the town square, any and every citizen can post his opinion to the “liberty tree” or speak up openly for or against whatever he chooses. He may challenge anyone he chooses to challenge. He doesn’t have to be eloquent, educated, polite or respectful. Issues are not considered “settled” just because some of the citizens in the community believe that to be the case.

The limits on the free speech in the town square are a matter of decency. Pornography is not allowed, profanity is not allowed, etc. Propaganda is allowed. Lies are allowed.

Some are thrilled by what is said in the town square. Some are offended. Some ignore. Some take notes.

The “town square” is a free exchange of ideas. The “liberty tree” is part of our American roots.

Fast forward to the Religion Forum.

There may be changes in the guidelines as a result of this discussion, but for now all posters on the RF should realize that the “open” threads are like the “town square” except that in addition to profanity and pornography being disallowed so is “hate mongering” which includes such sources as Jack Chick, KKK, Aryan Nations, National Alliance, VDare, Jesus-is-Lord.com, the false Jesuit Oath.

A poster does not need to be a member of X to post an article or Holy writ of X or to claim what the Xes believe or used to believe. However, to avoid being a trouble-maker and ending up on the moderator’s radar as a disturber of the peace, he is wise to be polite and to present his ideas as his own.

The problem.

When a gentile person walks into the “town square” or reads the posts on a “liberty tree” he might become deeply offended. No doubt that was also the case back in the day of the actual “liberty tree.”

On the Religion Forum, gentile members of X may become offended by the town square frontal assaults on their deeply held beliefs. That is to be expected. And for that reason, the “closed” threads exist so that they can find “safe harbor.” The closed threads – devotionals, prayer threads and caucuses – are moderated as if the discussion was occurring behind the closed doors of a church.

But when those gentle members of X refuse to retreat to the safe harbor and instead stand in the “town square” insisting on the silence of others, they become disturbers of the peace. More importantly, such insistence challenges whether the concept of a “town square” is workable when the subject is religion.

I realize that many think there is nothing more contentious than religious debate on this forum. If so, they’ve probably not spent much time on the Civil War threads – or the Creation/Evolution (Crevo) threads. And the same initiatives happen there also. On the Crevo threads, some of the science community used to insist that only scientists should have a voice. And on the Civil War threads, one side or the other asserts political correctness.

And because this is a conservative forum, the “town square” does not permit the socialist or fascist voice except as a piñata to be shot down by the contributors.

But conservatives come with various religious beliefs. There is no “official” belief on the forum.

So I would appreciate all of the contributors on this particular thread to reconsider their thoughts in light of the “town square.”

Should the “town square” be eliminated on the Religion Forum?

Should all threads be “closed” to debate?

Should all debate be ecumenic?

There was another post, however, that specifically complained about threads being posted by Protestants regarding various elements of Rome.

I can personally cite have dozens - if not hundreds - of posts and FReepmails to me, wherein Catholics have complained about my threads. Complaints when I posted the Pope's weekly address, unedited. Complaints that I (allegedly) changed article titles. Complaints that I excerpted articles. Complaints that I post too many Catholic articles. Complaints that I post any Catholic articles. Complaints that I should only be allowed to post articles about my own beliefs. Complaints about the imagined reasons why I elect to post anything at all.

I think my favorites would be the complaints that my articles aren't devotional in nature, and that only devotional materials should be allowed in the forum.

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.