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…!
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.
Crosspost with Beliefnet’s “Casting Stones“
on May 3rd, 2008 at 2:23 pm
David-
Thanks for this insightful post. i was most struck by Mr. Donahue’s handsome compensation package. I know the scriptures tell us that the laborer is worth his (her) wage, but this quite a nice wage at that. The work of the Lord really does bring great blessings. I wonder if Donahue needs any assistants?
on May 3rd, 2008 at 3:05 pm
I was wondering: Do the three candidates have Protestant Advisory Groups? Jewish Advisory Groups?
on May 3rd, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Mr. Donahue forgot to mention respect for the Sanctity of Marriage and the Family. The Catholic Advisory Board, if faithful to the teaching of the Magisterium, is in a unique position to bring about change not only for the Democratic Party but for the entire Country. Only good could come from such change. Does the Catholic Advisory Board have the courage to be Catholic? We will have to wait and see. BE NOT AFRAID.
on May 3rd, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Anthony, I suspected most people (myself as well) would be struck by Bill Donohue’s compensation package, and I hesitated before putting it in there. The Catholics United release had the figure, then I looked up the League’s financials and confirmed it (though I can’t honestly say I understand where the rest of their sizeable budget goes, or where it comes from). In a sense salary is a distraction from the larger issues, and of course one person’s “rich” is someone else’s “just getting by.” Still, I think the figure is quite generous, al things considered. Again, that could wind up as a red herring here.
Joe Komonchak: All campaigns now have religious outreach staff, as they call them, and there are other more established groups for specific religions, such as the The National Jewish Democratic Council and the Republican Jewish Coalition. Those groups are often more involved in politicking and fundraising and such. Candidates can also pick up endorsement from Protestant pastors, like black ministers or evangelicals and televangelists, who are able to back candidates (they say) without endangering their tax status. The Catholic vote hasn’t been in play in recent years has much as it is now, and all religious groups are targeted as voting blocs in these days of niche political strategizing. I suspect candidates genuinely want to know how to reach Catholic voters, who are tough to read. The fact that priests and bishops cannot (overtly) endorse candidates may make the effort to form advisory committees necessary. In the old days (I hear), candidates could have a Catholic kitchen cabinet. But now it’s more overt.
What is your thinking? You sound skeptical. Should candidates form these groups? Should Catholics–or others in other faiths–join them?
on May 3rd, 2008 at 4:46 pm
I’ve noticed that in D.C., black pastors regularly endorse candidates without apparent fear of losing their tax-exempt status. I’ve wondered why.
I was just wondering if there’s something unique about Catholicism that would lead candidates to target them in particular. It reminds me of the end of Vatican II, when Pope Paul VI wrote special messages for various groups: workeres, artists, intellectuals, heads of government–and women. But there was none for men.
Are we considered esoteric, that we need special attention?
I notice that you don’t mention any Protestant Advisory Board.
on May 3rd, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Isn’t the obvious reason there’s a Catholic advisory board because Catholics, who used to vote Democratic, have jumped ship, crossed over, or refused to vote because of abortion/homosexuality issues?
Most of the other traditionally Democrat-voting blocs are more secure.
It would be interesting to know whether the advisers have made much headway helping the candidates understand Catholic sensibilities. Clearly Donohue thinks the advisers will fail because they’re “dissidents.”
In any case, this is only the beginning of the lines that will be drawn between the “good” and “bad” Catholics in the coming months. I expect that after the conventions this summer, we’ll get the usual spate of letters to the diocesan paper reminding those who vote Democratic that we might as well be “voting for Hitler.”
on May 3rd, 2008 at 7:36 pm
The “Protestant” advisory groups are usually called names like “Evangelicals for Mitt” or for McCain or whatever the case may be. Or they are simply non-denominational-sounding, like the effort by Jim Wallis and others to create a progressive “religious left,” whatever that may be. (In that regard, check out this Pew Forum video and transcript on “Religion and Progressive Politics” which includes a Chris Korzen, head of Catholics United–and clearly of an age that makes me doubt my grumpy convictions about the lack of activism by young people: http://pewforum.org/events/?EventID=181. )
Regarding Protestants, which essentially means conservative Christians, led by evangelicals, another factor is that in recent years, esp under Bush, they have become part of the political machinery of Washington. (See the book “Faith in the Halls of Power.”) They ae no longer outsiders. They are insiders. Hence the demise of the Christian Coalition and Moral Majority and other vanguard groups of the religious right–they are non-entities because they are not much needed.
Catholics are needed–no candidate wins the popular vote without the Catholic vote (though you can still win in the Electoral College and the Supreme Court, as Bush did, without the Catholic vote–or at least not without the Catholics on the Supreme Court). But all groups are needed. The stark split in the electorate in recent years has also meant that every vote counts, truly (well, except in Florida and Ohio and…). So its not just the size of the Catholic vote, it’s that it can tip either way. Also, it pays to court Jews, eg, or black Protestants, because if the GOP, for example , can peel away just a few percentage points from either group, it could tip an election. Or better still if they can suppress votes or discourage a voting bloc so they don’t come out in droves, same effect.
on May 3rd, 2008 at 7:49 pm
I wasn’t thinking so much of religiously minded groups that gather in support of a candidate, but of groups organized and/or targeted by a candidate’s campaign.
Perhaps there won’t be a Protestant Advisory Group” because Protestants are such a varied lot. But hasn’t there been talk lately that there’s no such thing any more as “the Catholic vote”?
on May 3rd, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Grant and Cathy, welcome to the world of what some on the right easily and idiotically label as “dissident.”
This kind of usually simpleminded thinking – often characteristic of the narrow minded Mr. Donahue, probably should not rven be graced with a thread here.
When I think of the cast of Catholic characters that advised GWB, I find this laughable, except it’s sad.
on May 3rd, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Donohue is one of the few people who, unfortunately, deserve “ad hominem” attacks. I have rarely found that he speaks for me; his pugnacity and bellicose remarks highlight his distance from the spirit of the Gospel, reminding me that he lives out the stereotype of the brusque New Yorker more than a person who is actually a follower of Christ. It will be relief when he finally retires from public view.
on May 4th, 2008 at 1:11 am
Nancy said,
The Catholic Advisory Board, if faithful to the teaching of the Magisterium, is in a unique position to bring about change not only for the Democratic Party but for the entire Country. Only good could come from such change. Does the Catholic Advisory Board have the courage to be Catholic?
Nice to hear from someone who doesn’t flinch from swimming upstream here at the Commonweal blog. Nancy: Put on your armor and prepare for incoming (verbal) rounds.
on May 4th, 2008 at 9:19 am
Welcome, Nancy. No need to put your armor on for this one, or Bob either.
I’m truly interested in how either of you would advise the advisory boards to advise the candidates.
I would like to think that things could change, at least incrementally, with regard to some planks in the Democratic Party platform. I live in a predominantly Catholic area where most of the Democrats running for the state house ARE pro-life.
So, at the national level, Democrats might go so far as to “loosen” the abortion plank by acknowledging that every party member has the right to vote his or her conscience on this issue, and that it supports states’ rights to place restrictions on abortion. This is essentially what the Republican Party platform does with capital punishment.
But is it right to make compromises with the truth, as we always must if we are politically active? Or do we simply give up political participation through mainstream parties and become active in lobbying groups, etc.?
I’m not a great abstract thinker. Just interested in how you see this playing out in a practical sense. Get out of party politics altogether and join lobbying groups or what?
on May 4th, 2008 at 9:23 am
Oops, sorry for the poor editing above. I get a lot of time-outs, so when I backtrack and try to edit, things come out funny, and I end up not making as much sense as I thought.
Divine intervention, no doubt, urging me to shut up and get off here.
on May 4th, 2008 at 10:29 am
“The pope, whose own Diocese of Rome has the highest abortion rate in the country, has strongly and consistently preached a pro-life message to Italians, but that has not been translated into political activism among leading Catholics.” http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0405680.htm
In the US political hay is made out of abortion because of manipulation by political smoothies. Italians realize the stupidity of it.
We probably need more people to go to the opera here or listen more to Sinatra. Or something. The stink is overwhelming.
Viva Italia!
on May 4th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
I always thought Bill Donahue was a Bronxy screamer. Gibson thinks he worth having a beer with? I would think his overblown compensation suggests champagne. As a consistent ethic person I have never had a satifactory answer from the one issue anti-abortion people about what legal sanctions they would propose for doctors,pharmacists and women who have abortions especially now that the abortion pill is available everywhere.
on May 4th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Ed, not sure what counts as satisfactory. But I would think that, come the revolution, the abortion pill would be out of stock at the corner drugstore.
As for sentencing, I’d suggest a phase-in period during which offending doctors are fined big-time and immediately lose their licenses, pharmacists fined, lose their license, and the store closes after the second violation. The mother gets a suspended sentence and job training, or community service if she’s already employable. Second abortion while on probation, 2-5 years. Same for her dad if he drives her or makes her.
Ater five years of leniency start handing out life terms to the doctors. We’re on a learning curve here, but the doctors who actually, you know, kill, know exactly what they’re doing.
By the way, I’d like to have Bill’s job when he’s done with it. On the same terms.
on May 4th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Ed, you don’t get a satisfactory answer because there isn’t one vision that all pro-life lobbying groups share for a post-Roe world. The most common answer I hear is that in a post-Roe world, state laws that existed prior to Roe would kick in. And since abortion was legal in New York state and Washington, D.C., prior to Roe, I expect the battle would continue in the state legislatures.
Occasionally someone will suggest a prison sentence for mothers or doctors. In some Latin American states that ban abortion, there are prison terms of a few years for mothers. Doctors are also imprisoned and lose their licenses to practice.
Very rarely you hear, as I do from my Baptist sister-in-law, that nothing less than the death penalty will do. Her argument is that even a two year old has a fighting chance against an ax murderer. But a fetus has no means of protection. The mother essentially holds it down while the doctor chops it up.
But I hope this thread isn’t going to veer away from “how can we advise politicians about Catholic notions of morality and public life” and into the topic of abortion, which always ends 100 posts later in bitter acrimony.
on May 4th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
“Nice to hear from someone who doesn’t flinch from swimming upstream here at the Commonweal blog. Nancy: Put on your armor and prepare for incoming (verbal) rounds.”
And I’m sure you are praying just as hard for the conversion of the Republican Party.
on May 4th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Since black women are more than 3 times as likely to have abortions as white women, and hispanic women are more than 2 times as likely to have abortions as white women, and since about half of all women who obtain an abortion have had one previously, is the goal here to bring the incarceration rate for minority women up to the level of that for minority men?
on May 4th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
No, David, the goal is no abortions. Not safe, not legal, not ever.
But Jean’s right: let’s not argue. Let’s talk about how I can get a higher salary.
on May 4th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Kathy,
Hasn’t the Catholic Church said something really quite reasonable about this issue, or at least reasonable if the goal is no abortions? That would be the Declaration on Procured Abortion, from which I quote my favorite paragraph here:
Can Catholic abortion opponents be faithful to the teachings of the Church without going along with that?
Also, in the unlikely event that abortion is criminalized, and even if it isn’t, shouldn’t someone give some thought to alternatives to locking people up? The United States already has the highest incarceration rate in the world. Isn’t it a terrible waste of people to put them in prison? Even if you wanted to deprive doctors of their freedom, couldn’t their skills and talents be put to use somehow?
on May 4th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
There have been some notable occasions when Bill Donohue angered Republicans, and he probably sees himself as evenhanded in carrying out his mission to oppose bigotry against Catholics. But he can be very partisan. Here are some instances that I recall from my years as a reporter covering New York politics.
Back in 1999, he was not content simply to ally himself with Rudy Giuliani’s attack on a controversial painting of the Blessed Mother in the Brooklyn Museum. He also tried to boost Giuliani in his planned run for the U.S. Senate against Hillary Clinton. “Now Catholics need to know the position of Hillary Clinton, and to that end, we have asked her to state her position on this issue. We have noted for her that the museum is accessible by the number 2 and 3 subway lines,” he said.
Donohue continued to assist Giuliani on the first day of Clinton’s campaign for the Senate, when she entered an appearance to the song “Captain Jack.” Maybe not the best choice: “Captain Jack will get you high tonight …” This is what Donohue said in his press release:
” … just prior to Mrs. Clinton’s announcement yesterday, her campaign blasted the song “Captain Jack” to the crowd at SUNY Purchase. “Your sister’s gone out, she’s on a date and you just sit at home and masturbate,” is how the lyrics read. Other lyrics put a positive spin on pornography and drugs.
“It cannot be argued that playing a patently offensive song prior to welcoming Mrs. Clinton was a mistake. No, Mrs. Clinton’s operatives wanted to send a message and they succeeded. It is mind-boggling that Mrs. Clinton’s campaign chiefs would want to flag a sexually irresponsible song as a way of introducing her to New York. Talk about getting off on the wrong foot.”
That’s right. Donohue started Hillary Clinton’s first campaign for office by accusing her of deliberately promoting drugs and pornography. (Based on a very warped understanding of the Billy Joel song.)
On another occasion that I recall, he joined Giuliani at a news conference involving a Russian Orthodox monastery that had been briefly seized by the Palestinian Authority. Again, Donohue called on Clinton to take a position – thereby boosting Giuliani’s attempt to show that Clinton was a friend of the Palestinians and soft on supporting Israel. Nothing Donohue said at that news conference had anything to do with official Catholic positions on the Middle East – it was entirely about New York politics
on May 4th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
David N., how does my plan conflict with your plan? Why can’t both be implemented at the same time?
Regarding Protestants, is Shaun Casey advising someone this time around? Last time he was with Kerry, I think
on May 4th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Frankly, I’m glad Senator Obama is at least making the effort to reach out to Catholics. His sense of urgency about uniting the country is palpable here; I think this Catholic outreach effort is just another example of bringing people together who otherwise wouldn’t agree.
Bill Donahue would rather divide us and heighten the partisan strife that we all abhor. Indeed, Senator Obama is not going to abandon the Democratic platform on abortion whole-sale, but neither is Hillary Clinton. And, John McCain supports stem-cell research. Where’s the Donahue press release on that? Clearly, this was a calculated political maneuver to cut-down someone on the rise who Donahue does not like, but an obvious move at that. Hopefully it doesn’t distract from the important discourses of the campaign and from Senator Obama’s candidacy.
on May 4th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Maybe (re Paul Moses) Bill Donohue finds a fictional song character masturbating more offensive than a real live politician whose philandering makes a mockery of the eucharist.
Or maybe Donohue believes that Giuliani isn’t perfect but could be redeemed as a Catholic with proper handling by friendly and orthodox Catholics, whereas Clinton is beyond the pale, as a non-Catholic, pro-choice, political opportunist (sorry, that last is my own subjective opinion).
Hard to know what to make of those anecdotes.
What’s he saying about Giuliani since Cardinal Egan’s slapdown? My guess is that Donohue has dropped Giuliani like a hot potato.
on May 4th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
For the Advisory Committee: somewhere in the aura, I read a quote from Obama saying that he wouldn’t want his daughter punished for getting pregnant accidently; he would want her to be able to get an abortion.
Without wanting to enter into the pro-chocie/pro-life chain saw here, I think one of you advisors should tell him never to say this again (if indeed, he actually said it).
First, parents shouldn’t address the future of their daughter’s sex and reproductive lives in public!
Second, I assume that the Obamas, ma and pa, would be sure to offer and/or make sure their children have a good understanding of sex, etc…. [This reminds me of the teenager who told me that visiting a friend in the midst of a brouhaha with her mother on the subject of sex, the mom said, "just you remember, an erect penis has no conscience." It does seem like a useful piece of information.] Well, the point is whether parents are for abstinence until marriage, or not, they would do daughters and sons a great favor by explaining how not to get pregnant just in case they forgot! and had sex.
Anyway, my point: Obama sounds a little heartless and a little ignorant in the quote (if he actually said it); so advisors advise him to keep quiet unless he gets smarter and/or more reflective of how he’d want a future grandchild to be treated by a panicy daughter whose father once said in public that her life might be ruined if she didn’t get an abortion!
on May 4th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Kathy,
It’s not my plan, since I am not in favor of criminalizing abortion. But it seems to me the Church does acknowledge that abortions are often procured because women feel they have no other way out of a difficult situation, and therefore the Church is calling for society not merely to ban abortion, but to provide the alternatives.
As I have argued before, the left might be willing to provide alternatives, but not enact prohibitions, and the right seems willing to enact prohibitions but not provide alternatives. So what it would really take to get a Catholic approach to abortion is a major compromise between left and right. But those on the right seem to think they are more faithful to the teachings of the Church, since they believe the important part of the Church’s teaching is the legal ban. And some believe the legal prohibition in an of itself is what’s important, even if it doesn’t reduce the number of abortions. What is important is to have laws that send the message, even if nobody heeds it.
If everyone could agree that the primary goal was reducing the number of abortions, then a compromise would be possible in theory. But not everyone agrees that’s the goal.
I think the only way out is more effective fertility control, and I imagine a hundred years from now, there will be few if any abortions, at least in the developed world.
on May 4th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
By the way, I have more faith in Grant and Cathleen than to believe they would misinform Obama on matters of Catholic doctrine and belief.
If McCain has Catholic advisers, are they obligated to attempt to argue him out of supporting abortion in cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother? And are they obligated to advise him his support for fetal stem-cell research must be abandoned? If from the pro-life viewpoint McCain is the lesser of two evils, is he nevertheless still evil, and can he be voted for?
on May 4th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
David,
In this as in most areas I favor whenever possible the Catholic “and.” Prohibition of the killing of innocents, and economic justice. Both – and.
(I’ll let you get in one more jab but shall not speak again on the subject. It turns out people can get paid to be obnoxious. Let’s not dissipate our stores!)
on May 4th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Kathy,
My point is that the true Catholic position (as I understand it) is the comprehensive approach combining legal prohibitions and social programs assisting would-be mothers. I hope saying that doesn’t count as being obnoxious!
on May 4th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
There is absolutely no respect for Italians on this thread. Kathy, you want to make money join talk radio where there is a fortune to be made for the right. No money in it for liberals. Put everybody in prison and your income will grow exponentially.
The Italians are the best. Why listen to the pundits when there is music to be sung.
on May 4th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Sorry (almost) to join in on the abortion debate here, but for my money there’s still a need for those who favor making aboriton illegal again to deal with the recent Lancet study. Here’s how the NYTimes reported it on 10/12/07: “A comprehensive global study of abortion has concluded that abortion rates are similar in countries where it is legal and those where it is not, suggesting that outlawing the procedure does little to deter women seeking it.
Moreover, the researchers found that abortion was safe in countries where it was legal, but dangerous in countries where it was outlawed and performed clandestinely. Globally, abortion accounts for 13 percent of women’s deaths during pregnancy and childbirth, and there are 31 abortions for every 100 live births, the study said.”
So…if women’s lives count as equal to those of fetuses (not presently the case in Catholic teaching, since a woman is expected to take no action in self-defense in cases of life-threatening pregnancy, but rather to allow herself and the fetus both to die,) it would seem obvious that the pro-life position would be to encourage the legality of safe abortion, and to embark on a program of public education and policy-advocacy that encourage and enable women to choose to bring their pregnancies to term. Or am I missing something here?
(A case for a politician being pro-choice while anti-abortion can also be made on Thomistic grounds of rhe role of government, but this is enough for one post, already tangential to topic.)
on May 4th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Lisa —
Some of the more obvious problems with that “study”: http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/10/department_of_awful_statistics_1.php
on May 4th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
Kathy, I would like to hear your creative ideas about phasing in legal sanctions dealing with other serious sins such as adultery, fornication, gay sex, price gouging (attention, oil company execs), denying life-saving health care to people in need (attention, the majority of the American electorate), and especially not treating one’s neighbor as oneself.
on May 4th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
David R.,
I didn’t invent the legal code and its priorities. Abortion is a moral issue. But not only moral. Criminal culpability is ordinarily weighed according to the amount of evil done. Killing is usually, legally, considered very serious. Direct and intentional killing is always (outside of war and self-defense) treated as one of the worst possible crimes.
Negligence and unchastity are punished in the next life, mostly, I think, although they probably tend to backfire here, too.
on May 4th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
The language of “dissidents” is worthy of Stalin and Mao. “Orthodoxy” has now become an idolatry, fulfilling Karl Rahner’s prediction that the next major heresy in the Church would come in under the auspices of “orthodoxy”.
Here is what “Caroline” wrote on my website:
“Creative amnesia is not enough; we need to critically overcome and dismantle what we said with such solemnity for two millennia!” A very hard battle. For many Catholics FAITH has become a nervous dance through a thickly planted minefield of magisterial statements. There are so very many ways in which one can become a heretic and incur damnation (as some would have it.) So many the corners into which we have painted ourselves and called it the work of the Holy Spirit. Did Christ really intend this? Is this why He sent the Holy Spirit–so that after 2000 years no one could say peep without footnoting it by or defending it from one magisterial statement or another? It may be that for the young the creative amnesia will be the best solution, what the critics call poor catechesis.
on May 4th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
“The pope, whose own Diocese of Rome has the highest abortion rate in the country, has strongly and consistently preached a pro-life message to Italians, but that has not been translated into political activism among leading Catholics.” http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0405680.htm
The Pope’s Secretary of State allowed 400 abortions a year to be performed in a Catholic hospital he presided over in Genoa; this has been discontinued by his successor.
on May 4th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
Stuart,
The blogger challenging the Lancet study states that she had not read the article. In fact, the statistical concerns she speculates about were taken into consideration in the study, which can be found at thelancet.com, for free if you register. McArdle is correct that longitudinal studies will help clarify the situation, but her assertion that making abortion legal makes it more common is inconsistent with the finding that the highest AND the lowest incidences of abortion occured in regions where it is legal.
on May 5th, 2008 at 6:55 am
Lisa,
Poor women are most likely to abort. The study compared countries in which abortion is legal–often developed nations–and countries where it’s illegal but conditions are often more desperate. It did not account for economic conditions or any other social or legal factors. That’s fine, as far as it goes, but it cannot logically be taken to mean that criminalization has no effect. In order to make that conclusion, a study would have to show abortion rates in a given country before and after legalization or criminalization.
on May 5th, 2008 at 7:25 am
There is no doubt that criminalization causes more butchery. Latin America is clear on that and it is clear here before it was legal.
What is more clear is that 12,000 people a day were put on trains from czechoslovakia, Germany and Hungary, stripped, given a towel as if they were preparing for a shower and were then brutally burned alive. This was all done by Christian people championing Jesus Christ.
As usual the people calling for imprisonment in such matters should be in jail themselves.
on May 5th, 2008 at 7:37 am
AUTHOR INTERVENTION: The abortion whys and wherefores are pretty much exhausted, I think. Let’s get back to the issue of the Catholic League and politicking, and, I daresay, the role of such a group in denouncing or fomenting anti-Catholicism. More to come today, no doubt. Thanks.
on May 5th, 2008 at 9:15 am
Joe K: You stated that in D.C. black pastors “regularly” endorse candidates. Do you have any examples? OTOH, it’s also possible that you are repeating what is “conventional wisdom” without any particular source to back it up? I don’t think it’s routine but maybe you know this from personal knowledge of specific churches? Just wondering.
I assume that a Catholic advisory group is to help Obama figure out how Catholics will likely react to his language and policies. I doubt if it is to explicitly incorporate Catholic teaching into policy, but more likely, how to convey how his policies are consistent with Catholic doctrine. In any event, increasingly, it appears that there is no Catholic voting block, and that individual Catholics are more likely to be aligned on some other demographic axis (income, age, education, race, geography). So I assume that Obama, who is not conventionally pro-life and isn’t going to try to cast himself as such, is more interested in making sure his language is temperate and that he does not needlessly offend on the issue.
on May 5th, 2008 at 9:32 am
Barbara:
I can’t cite chapter and verse, but each election cycle there are always stories about the pastors inviting and endorsing candidates. I didn’t mean that they all do it, but I’ve been struck that it seems expected in some churches and even welcomed by the parishioners. Not the sort of thing that Catholics expect of their pastors–not to mention the IRS.
on May 5th, 2008 at 9:55 am
FWIW, I found by googling examples of both white and black majority churches making or appearing to make endorsements and some of them getting into hot water with the IRs.
Since the Wright affair, it has become apparent to me that there is a huge double standard — holding blacks and their churches up to a higher standard and assuming, as a matter of course, that they don’t meet it.
http://www.sptimes.com/2004/09/15/news_pf/State/IRS_warns_churches__n.shtml
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23155264/
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20060930/23345_Election_Year_Leads_IRS_to_Church.htm
http://www.startribune.com/politics/11759121.html
http://www.getreligion.org/?p=3079
http://www.gazette.com/articles/church_15336___article.html/political_irs.html
on May 5th, 2008 at 11:07 am
David Gibson,
I agree to your terms, but someday I do hope Bill Mazzella fills out his theory on how I’m a Nazi.
It seems to me that Donohue has turned his attention from the anti-Catholicism aimed at the Church from outside to the concession, by public Catholics, of Catholic interests to the Democratic Party. It’s an interesting strategic move and it should probably be done with a smidge more delicacy. And I agree that it would carry more moral weight if he were bipartisan about it.
My question to you is, how is it working, the widespread attitude of rapproachement with the prevailing culture? Have we made great political gains as Catholics since 1963? Have we made religious progress? How have the Democrats been faring since they dropped half of the Catholic platform?
on May 5th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
As to Donohue’s compensation, who’s to say it’s excessive? It’s publicly available information, and the people who belong to the Catholic League are perfectly free to pay him what they think he’s worth. It reminds me of a teacher friend of mine from Denver who complained that you could pay a line of teachers from one end zone to another for what the Broncos pay one defensive lineman, and I said, “Yeah, but how many of them weigh three hundred pounds and can run 40 yards in 5.5 seconds?” No one forces anyone to contribute to the League, so unless you do (I don’t myself) I put this in the category of – not my business.
I do think his point on this issue has some validity. What does it mean to say you are a “Catholic” group? Many of the members are clearly and publicly in dissent with the Magesterium on important matters of doctrine. It is a fair question, it seems to me.
As for the whole – what about the rest of the Church’s teaching argument, it first ignores the distinction between those matters on which there can be legitimate disagreement and those that there is not – according not to individual predeliction, but the Church itself. Also, it frequently ignores the difference between means and ends.
Case in point, David’s citation of the Declaration on Procured Abortion. I assent to the quote entirely. However, I heartily disagree that supporting an enormous, community destroying, soul crushing, and wasteful social welfare bureaucracy fits the bill. How you go about acheiving the goal of the teaching is open to discussion. The same is not true for the abortion issue. To be consistent with Catholic teaching the law must recognize the humanity of the unborn.
BTW – The exact quote from Obama was – “But if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.” The advisors might be able to coach him on saying the right words, but I think we know his mind.
on May 5th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Sean said: Many of the members are clearly and publicly in dissent with the Magesterium on important matters of doctrine.
Jean asks: Who and on what matters, specifically?
on May 5th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Kathy, I am not calling you a Nazi. I include all Christians in gross negligence in allowing 6 million Jews plus to be led to their deaths while we tend to be self righteous about something about which we have no evidence at all. The only constant in most is that the issue has no personal bearing at all to most of the verbose fanatics.
Christians are still denying the holocaust, starvation, and do not near the decibels of concern with reference to you know what.
on May 5th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
“As for the whole – what about the rest of the Church’s teaching argument, it first ignores the distinction between those matters on which there can be legitimate disagreement and those that there is not – according not to individual predeliction, but the Church itself.”
Oh, I know what you mean. Picture a great conversation between St Francis of Assisi, St Therese of Avila, St Therese of Liseaux and Bill O’Reilly about whether one should torture prisoners and hostages. Boy, to be a fly on that wall!
on May 5th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
Or picture St. Clare, St. Edith Stein and Bartolome de las Casas discussing a woman’s right to choose with EJ Dionne.
on May 6th, 2008 at 8:07 am
Jean,
Well certainly most of the politicians support abortion on demand. Governor Sebelius has vetoed pretty much every regulation of abortionists in her state, where somewhere in the neighborhood of 25% of all third trimester abortions are performed. As a state legislator she clearly stated that she believes the unborn have no human rights – clearly at odds with Church doctrine. Sr Pinkerton and Prof Cahill, I believe, support female ordination. I expect many of the other theologians on the panel do as well, but I don’t know for sure.
The point is, at what point is it inaccurate to identify a group as Catholic?
on May 6th, 2008 at 9:37 am
Someone wrote this to me about our abortion hypocrisy in the US.
“As Italian woman I’m puzzled: why doesn’t anybody comment on the blog about what the pope actually DOES in Italy? On 17 June 2007 in Assisi and 21 october 2007 in Naples BXVI himself gave Communion to Prodi, prime minister and pro-choice. Nobody in the USA seems to me bothered by this, why? Why must american bishops be more catholic than the pope????
And here Ruini, bishop Vicario of Roma and (now former) president of the bishops’ conference gives Communion to Prodi:”
on May 6th, 2008 at 10:31 am
Sean asks: The point is, at what point is it inaccurate to identify a group as Catholic?
Jean says: I infer that you don’t believe that simply saying, “I’m a Catholic” necessarily makes you one–or at least makes you a good enough Catholic to advise politicians about Catholic teaching.
But I wonder if you see a difference between vetoing abortion restrictions and saying you support women’s ordination. One is an act against magisterial teaching. The other is a wish that things were different, but there’s no indication that the individuals you mention have done anything but obey the current teaching.