Edwards vs. Donohue Death Match (UPDATED)
Since we’re a blog for Catholics, we’d be remiss if we didn’t at least mention the current dust-up between the Edwards campaign and, ahem, William Donohue, self-proclaimed protector of all things Catholic (or at least his version thereof).
According to the NY Times:
Two bloggers hired recently by Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards were criticized Tuesday by a Catholic group for posts they had written elsewhere on the Internet. Bill
Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil
Rights, demanded that Edwards fire Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan. ”John
Edwards is a decent man who has had his campaign tarnished by two
anti-Catholic, vulgar, trash-talking bigots,” Donohue wrote in a
statement. ”He has no choice but to fire them immediately.’ The Edwards campaign declined to comment. McEwan and Marcotte did not respond to e-mails requesting a response. Donohue
cited posts that the women made on blogs in the past several months in
which they criticized the pope and the church for its opposition to
homosexuality, abortion and contraception, sometimes using profanity.
Sometimes using profanity? Get around the blogosphere much? Lots of interesting things here. First, the headline of the article in the Times is “Catholics Slam Bloggers Hired By Edwards.” This is true as far as it goes. Donohue is a Catholic, although I’m not sure the use of the plural to describe his one-man outrage-show is technically correct. Second, it’s interesting that Donohue thinks Edwards is a stand-up guy. Let’s see if that attitude survives should Edwards win the primary. Third, Donohue is probably not the best guy to be out policing blogs for civility. After all, this is the person who said the following:
“Who really cares what Hollywood thinks? All
these hacks come out there. Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate
Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. It’s not
a secret, OK?
And I’m not afraid to say it. … Hollywood likes anal sex. They like to see the
public square without nativity scenes. I like families. I like children. They like abortions. I believe in
traditional values and restraint. They believe in libertinism.”
Not only is he an embarrassment who obviously doesn’t hold himself to the same standards he holds for others, but his judgment of what counts as anti-Catholic is, to say the least, seriously suspect, and has a tendency towards, shall we say, ideological selectivity. Finally, as much as it pains me to say it, I think Donohue may have a point in this case. The blog posts mentioned in the story did speak of a deep-seated hostility to the Church as an institution. For example, one post described in the article said the following:
”The Catholic church is not about to let something like compassion for
girls get in the way of using the state as an instrument to force women
to bear more tithing Catholics,” Marcotte wrote on the blog Pandagon
on Dec. 26.
Besides being inaccurate (how many Catholics actually tithe?), I think Marcotte’s post goes beyond simply criticizing the Church’s positions on contraception, etc. on the merits and attacks the institution as a whole in ways that resonate with traditionally anti-Catholic rhetoric from the bad old days. There are plenty of substantive grounds on which to criticize the Church’s position on contraception without resorting to rhetoric that consciously aims to offend. Does this mean that Edwards should fire the bloggers, as Donohue is demanding? I leave that for you to hash out in the comments.
UPDATE: Edwards released the following statement on his blog:
The tone and the sentiment of some of Amanda Marcotte’s and Melissa
McEwen’s posts personally offended me. It’s not how I talk to people,
and it’s not how I expect the people who work for me to talk to people.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that kind of intolerant
language will not be permitted from anyone on my campaign, whether it’s
intended as satire, humor, or anything else. But I also believe in
giving everyone a fair shake. I’ve talked to Amanda and Melissa; they
have both assured me that it was never their intention to malign
anyone’s faith, and I take them at their word. We’re beginning a great
debate about the future of our country, and we can’t let it be
hijacked. It will take discipline, focus, and courage to build the
America we believe in.
FWIW, apart from the merits of his decision, I think this way of explaining things is a mistake. The comments on Marcotte’s blog (especially on this post) were clearly intended to offend. (Really, what else could be intended by a post comparing the Holy Spirit to semen and talking about Mary taking Plan B to prevent the conception — or, more accurately, induce the abortion — of Jesus?) I think the vast majority of Catholic voters see that. For Edwards to take Marcotte at her word — that she did not intend to offend — is pretty much to tell those who are offended that there is something wrong with them. If he felt he could not fire her (perhaps because of a fear of being viewed as having caved in to hacks like Donohue and Michelle Malkin), it would have been better for Edwards to draw a different line, saying that he would not hold people responsible for blog posts written before they came to work for him, or something like that. To say that he actually believes that she did not intend to offend Catholics either means he is a sucker (because he believes her, even though she clearly did intend to offend) or he thinks Catholics who were offended are suckers (because he thinks they’ll believe that he believed Marcotte did not intend to offend). Alternatively, he may think that Catholics who were so offended that they will now not vote for him were people who would not have voted for him anyway. I think that would be another mistake. Am I wrong? Has this changed anyone’s mind about Edwards?
UPDATE II: Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good weighs in with a press release:
Washington, D.C. - Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good
Executive Director Alexia Kelley issued the following statement today in
response to the controversy over the John Edwards campaign’s hiring of netroots
consultants who had made insensitive remarks regarding Catholicism:
“Catholics in
for the Common Good condemns these and all religiously intolerant remarks.
We accept Senator
Edwards’ assurances that he too was offended by comments made by
recently-hired staffers and that religious intolerance has no place in his
campaign. Catholics comprise more than one quarter of the
public, and neither John Edwards nor any other candidate can
afford to take this constituency for granted.”
“We hope this unfortunate incident will initiate a
deeper conversation on the part of all presidential candidates regarding the
broad range of issues and values of primary importance to the Catholic
community, including the Iraq War, a concern for the poor, human life and
dignity, the availability of health care, and a commitment to the common good.”
UPDATE III: In response to one of the commenters, I’ve modified the wording in my first update to make clear that I’m talking primarily about Marcotte’s post about the Virgin Mary. I’m just not as familiar with the other blogger’s posts to make the same assertions about her intentions.
on February 7th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
Eduardo — I agree with you entirely that Mr. Donohue might be standing-challenged when it comes to objecting to incivility and lack of decorum. That said, the stuff Marcotte has said, and to which the critics — not just Donohue — are objecting, gets a *lot* worse than the passages mentioned in the Times piece. One could hardly expect John Edwards to disavow an employee who’d blogged negatively about Church teaching, but one doesn’t have to endorse Donohue’s tactics to think this is a bit much for the representative of a would-be President:
http://pandagon.net/2006/06/14/pandagon-goes-undercover-the-lazy-way-on-a-catholic-anti-contraception-seminar-pt-ii
on February 7th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
I think I’m with you on this, Rick. Thanks for the link.
on February 7th, 2007 at 11:45 pm
Should they be fired?
The next election is going to be fought out in places like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Missouri, and Michigan. Do the math.
I think this incident demonstrates how the Democrats effort to cultivate the “netroots” has serious potential for cultural blowback.
on February 8th, 2007 at 12:39 am
Well, this explains why Donohue said nothing about Prince at the Super Bowl.
$5 says that most of the bloggers whom McEwan and Marcotte seek have voting for Smilin’ Johnny already have Kucinich stickers on their cars.
on February 8th, 2007 at 12:40 am
…seek to have…
on February 8th, 2007 at 7:40 am
The question is, what, precisely is objectionable about it?
The crudity of the language–and its grossness?
It’s contempt for the church’s teaching on contraception, rooted in the belief that itt subjugates women. Lots of people, lots of Catholics, believe that.
The insult? Well, then, is sauce for the goose sauce for the gander? I took a look at Brownback’s presidential committee, and on that Committee is Father Frank Pavone, the anti-abortion activist. His language is not much different from Donahues on some topics. There are pro-life activists, and strategists, who are less prophetic–if you will–in their rhetoric. How would people respond if there were a demand to take Father Pavone off the committe because of his pro-life rhetoric, which insults people who morally disagree with him, and doesn’t merely express those disagreements politiely?
on February 8th, 2007 at 8:48 am
My point is (never blog on only one cup of coffee), I am not sure that Edwards’s assistant’s lanaguage is going to be politically ineffective, given the position of most people on contraception.
But that doesn’t make it right. But we need to figure out why, precisely, it’s wrong. Because we need to come up with some understanding of civiity that applies across the board– not just to the “other side” (whatever that is) , but to us as well.
So what are the criteria?
on February 8th, 2007 at 9:29 am
To be honest, I think people who are willing to say things no holds barred using images that shock is valuable. I think, for instance, that the abuse scandal was a lot worse because no one stood up in a public forum and asked quite graphically why the bishop was willing to put up with what Father So and So had done. I can never stop thinking that they depended on the decency and rectitude and yes, the hang ups, of their parishioners. Similarly, when someone stood up in a public forum and asked Antonin Scalia whether he has anal sex with his wife and Scalia said it’s none of anybody’s business, well, a rather valuable point was made about the mismatch between Scalia’s expectations of privacy for himself and his legal theories that dismiss other people’s expectations of privacy for themselves. It is abundantly clear that many people profess shock when, in truth, they just can’t or don’t want to address pointed criticisms of their own beliefs or actions. Having said all of that, I was a bit shocked that Edwards hired Amanda Marcotte because, to put it mildly, nothing she says is temperate, but then, she never set out to be a politician and I think it might have occurred to both of them that it was unlikely to be a good fit. But anti-Catholic? No, more just like, she’s willing to say out loud what a lot of other people, yes, even Catholic people, are already thinking.
on February 8th, 2007 at 9:41 am
Cathy — I don’t think it’s the contempt for the Church’s teaching on contraception that is objectionable, nor the assertion that it subjugates women, but the apparent contempt for the Church itself and (in addition) for Catholics who respect the institution and its symbols notwithstanding substantial disagreement about such issues as contraception (I think the post to which Rick linked is especially illustrative of this latter tendency, particularly the caption under Mary).
And even all of that is not out of bounds per se. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, after all, but I do think it’s not the message the Edwards campaign wants to send to a key Dem. constituency. It’s fine to be edgy, even offensive, I suppose, if you think that is what it takes to communicate your message, but I also think it’s a bit naive for these particular bloggers to be surprised that their edgy rhetoric has consequences (i.e., people get offended) when you move outside of the narrow demographic of the blogosphere.
Fr. Shawn — the interesting thing about this whole controversy is that Edwards (not Kucinich) is actually the favorite among those who read lefty blogs. Check out the straw polls on DailyKos, for example, where Edwards consistently leads (although Obama has been making headway).
on February 8th, 2007 at 9:57 am
Thanks Eduardo. But I think it’s complicated; I don’t think some people want to spearate the institution from the belief on key points of importance to them: If you think: 1) the church’s teaching on contraception is fundamenally wrong; 2) it’s function, if not its purpose, is to keep women in the house, with the kids, in the kitchen; 3) this misogyny is reflected elsewhere in church teaching and practice, e.g., in the refusal to ordain women, then it stands to reason you’re not going to have a high opinion of the institution that perpetuates these beliefs.
And the image of the Virgin Mary — the mother who never had sex –who is an ontologically impossible role model — has been subjected to extensive criticism by feminists., as one of the sources of the misogyny.
So I can see where she’s coming from. Just as I can see where Fr. Pavone’s wholesale critique of the Democratic Party as the culture of death is coming from, or Donahue’s wholesale critque of the Hollywood value system is coming from.
So we get back to teh key question: Is it a problem because it’s a pragmatic issue for Edwards (he mght alienate a key constituency) or is it a problem because it’s a bad way to address one’s fellow citizens? And if the latter, can we come up with content-neutral standards of civility? Should we even try?
on February 8th, 2007 at 9:58 am
John Edwards should not abandon these two simply because Uncle Bill demands it. He should do it because he is running for President. An office that represents all Americans. We are a diverse land, and the kind of spew and divisions coming from Pandagon has no more place in it than Uncle Bill or Ann Coulter do with their vile spew.
As for the Democratic Party - Howard Dean should send a memo to all campaigns ASAP to get their heads our of the sand regarding faith voters.
More @ http://eamon-matthew25.blogspot.com/
on February 8th, 2007 at 10:21 am
Cathy — I think it is largely, although not completely, a pragmatic question. Although I do think civility is an important public virtue, I’m willing to concede that lack of civility is often an appropriate moral response to something we find sufficiently objectionable (I’m not sure I agree that this is such a case, given the Church’s reluctance to emphasize its own teaching on contraception, at least in our society, but reasonable minds can disagree on this.).
I think the posts these two bloggers wrote are going to offend even Catholic voters who agree with them on the substantive question of contraception, and, consequently, the posts are going to dog the Edwards campaign — a campaign that I find very appealing — for the duration unless he cuts them loose.
On a separate note, I’m curious whether you think, as I do, that there is a reason to be more patient when such intemperate language comes from people embedded within a community than when it comes from outsiders.
on February 8th, 2007 at 10:35 am
Eduardo, the church in NA may be reluctant to emphasize its doctrine on contraception, but the church is not reluctant to do so in other countries, for instance, in Latin America and Africa, and, knowing a bit about the interests of those over at Pandagon, they are at least as angry over the impact of church doctrine in those places as they are here. So when we in the NA church express our disagreement by subvering the doctrine and using contraception without confronting the church over the theological validity of the doctrine, we give up an opportunity to assist those who don’t have the same wherewithal to ignore church teaching, for instance, those who might depend on the church for health care and schooling for their families. Breaking that silence and requiring Catholics to confront church teaching, whether they agree or disagree with it, is valuable. It’s just not really the job of a politician.
on February 8th, 2007 at 10:42 am
Thanks Eduardo.
Well, this is my current project (expanding my article on Prophecy and Casuistry into a book–which means I shouldn’t be blogging at all!) . I’m trying to come up with some criteria for the application of each mode of discourse.
So I do think it’s more than a pragmatic question. How we talk to people is a dimension of how we treat people.
I also think we need to give thought to the question, when is it right to be offended? What counts as reasonable ground to take offense? The trouble with taking offense is that it is a combination of an intellectual judgment with a (possibly outrunning) emotional reaction. It occupies a space between judgment and emotion.
I think the problem with the first line of the blog that Rick linked to is that to many Catholics, the Virgin Mary isn’t just a symbol–she’s a real person– she is someone they love, she’s their mother. And the image used degraded a person–not just a symbol.
So it’s reasonable for Catholics to take offense at that point.
On your question, I’m not entirely sure what you mean. I think that intemperate–prophetic language can have its most corrosive effects within a community, at least if its so corrosive that it suggests that the commenter would rather you leave the community. You can hurt the ones closest to you the most.
So it depends on what you mean by being patient with it. . . You really can’t argue with a self-proclaimed prophet; engaging in counter-propehcy means a shouting match.
Your question also requires recognition that we are all part of osverlapping communities. So, to the extent that I am part of the American community with Protestants, Jews, and Muslims, I have one set of concerns. I am part of the Catholic community with Mexicans, Europeans and Africans.
on February 8th, 2007 at 10:49 am
The real problem is that she profaned the name of the Blessed Mother in the most vile, vulgar way, an absolute desecration akin to the radio show that paid two people to have sex in St Patrick’s Cathedral.
Therefore, it doesn’t matter what her opinions are or if she has a legitimate right to disagree with the teachings of the Catholic Church. This post is not simply expressing a difference of opinion with the Church, but it is a straightforward, malicious attack on the central beliefs of our faith.
John Edwards does not need someone like this on his campaign staff. His campaign is focusing on economic justice. Last thing he needs is a bourgeoisie cultural activist
Edwards’ campaign resonates with me. I wrote a comment to his campaign saying that I can not support it as long as he has someone who publicly attacks the VIrgin Mary in such a disgusting way.
If you likewise want to send a comment to Edwards you can do so here: http://johnedwards.com/about/contact/form/
on February 8th, 2007 at 10:52 am
I have two takes on this. First, I have no time for Donohue. I’ve spent a lot of time on my blog lambasting his hypocrisy. See here: http://reasons-and-opinions.blogspot.com/2006/10/catholic-league-watch-monster-catch-up.html
But, I have to say, Marcotte’s comments were viciously anti-Catholic. The fact that many on the left failed to realize that explains very clearly why the GOP (a party that violates Catholic social theory over 90 percent of the time) seems to attract legions of Catholics. See here: http://reasons-and-opinions.blogspot.com/2007/02/anti-catholicism-last-acceptable.html
on February 8th, 2007 at 11:01 am
Color me confused, but this whole discussion seems to be missing an essential point. It is not just that these women are uncivil, but they attack essential beliefs of the Faith with such crudity.
Forgive me for falling for the “ontologically impossible role model” of the Blessed Mother, but that is an essential belief of the Faith, and no more ontologically impossible than than an incarnate God.
on February 8th, 2007 at 11:07 am
Cathleen,
Again, I am sure I am just another of those ignorant rubes, but doesn’t the Church teach us that the Blessed Mother IS a real person? Is this another optional matter of doctrine?
on February 8th, 2007 at 11:10 am
Sean –you’re right–if you’re Catholic. But non-Catholics (by definition) don’t see it the same way.
Is it the attack on the truth claims of the faith– or is it tjust the (admittedly awful) crudity?
Is it just our faith that counts?
Can we come up with a standard that regulates our behavior toward others, not only their behavior toward us?
on February 8th, 2007 at 11:19 am
I don’t want to make it sound like I have unlimited tolerance for disrespect, but Amanda probably doesn’t understand any theological niceties as they relate to the BVM. And ultimately, in my view, that’s why she and others like her are ineffective critics — because they don’t approach the subject wtih even a minimal level of understanding. A surgeon is going to be able to dissect an organism much better than a someone wielding a jagged piece of glass because he is well versed in anatomy and wields his tools with a lot more precision. But still, I maintain that as long as we understand the point that someone is making, or trying to make, we are much better off responding with informed knowledge than accusing them of being anti-Catholic. If we want civility, I maintain, this is how it will be built. By being civil even to those who are rude and we wish would just shut up.
on February 8th, 2007 at 11:21 am
I guess for me that’s the overarching question: If we are all going to live together, as Americans, who don’t all agree about religious matters, or moral matters, how are we going to do it in a way that’s fair to all, that allows the community to continue talking with one another.
I agree that Marcotte was way, way, out of line. But is our only criterion our gut? Can we come up with some sort of political etiquette about matters of religion and religiously based morality?
on February 8th, 2007 at 11:37 am
Political parties and the politicians within parties know and understand that things don’t get done without deals, compromises, and concessions. The tone used by McEwan and Marcotte could hurt Edwards if he had to make deals with Catholics either to get votes or to get anything done after being elected.
Both Edwards and Donohue understand that although there can be deep differences on some issues. there can be common agreement and common courtesy between the opponents. The blog comments lacked courtesy from the start. Those reading the blog might think, “Why would I want to work with that person?”.
Catholics who struggle deeply with the teachings on artificial contraception yet wish to remain faithful to the Church can look at these statements and respond, “These two do not speak for me, and if they keep speaking in this manner, I do not wish to be associated with them.”
on February 8th, 2007 at 11:38 am
Cathleen,
First, I don’t seek to regulate anyone’s behavior in this regard. These women are perfectly free to say what they want. I have no problem with that, but I am also free to be offended by it, and I am free to make judgments about a person who wishes to be president who would associate with them. I don’t care if he fires them. I’m not voting for the snake-oil salesman anyway.
In answer to your basic question - yes - it is the Faith that counts, at least as to my criticism. My criticism isn’t about them, but about the reaction to them I am seeing here. They, in a pornographic way, attacked the Blessed Mother and sought to parody an essential article of the Catholic Faith, and all the discussion centers on incivility. Had they instead said, “Mary, if she existed at all, certainly didn’t give birth as a virgin, and you are misguided lemmings for believing this mysoginistic nonsense.” I would still find this offensive, and I would still make the same conclusions about them and about Edwards.
We have become so used to attacking the Church, that I shouldn’t find it surprising that few are offended by an attacked on the Virgin Mary. I begin to wonder if there is anything that we WOULD take umbrage at.
on February 8th, 2007 at 11:39 am
Eduardo — thank you for informing me about the poll information.
on February 8th, 2007 at 11:47 am
Um…..Sean– everyone agrees that the comments were offensive. It’s funny to me how you never miss an opportunity to attack your fellow Catholics on this site, even when they agree with you. What are you, anti-Catholic or something? :-)
For the record, here’s the definition of uncivil:
1 : not civilized : BARBAROUS
2 : lacking in courtesy : ILL-MANNERED, IMPOLITE
3 : not conducive to civic harmony and welfare
- un·civ·il·ly /-v&-lE/ adverb
Which of these do you find inappropriate as a description of an intentionally offensive comment/argument/assertion about someone else’s religion?
on February 8th, 2007 at 11:49 am
Sean, OK –I know what you think is owed to Catholic sensibilities. What do Catholics owe others?
Just out of curiosity–Do you think the Pope’s remarks about Islam at Regensberg were out of line (assuming it was reasonable to assume he was endorsing at least some of what the Byzantine emperor said about Islam?)
on February 8th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
Cathleen,
You completely miss my point. They don’t owe anything to my sensibilities.
I am generally a libertarian as to public discourse - with some limits for decency, incitement to violence, and defamation. In fact, I am pretty sure that the blogger in question wanted to offend people like me. At least I know what she really thinks. That’s her right. As an American, I would like to be treated this way.
As a Catholic, however, my response to others must be tempered by charity, and ought to consider whether what I am saying may or may not affect someone else’s disposition or lead him to sin etc. That being said, I am certainly not bound to avoid all offense. Among other things, there may be times when you must risk offense or even intentionally cause it for the benefit of others, indeed for the benefit of the one offended.
As for the Regensberg speech - no - and I didn’t assume what you are assuming.
Eduardo - I said nothing about anyone’s religion - this may simplify my point - I found it very surprising that the initial reaction was all about etiquette - as if there is a polite way to blaspheme.
on February 8th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
FYI
http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/2/8/113651/4503
on February 8th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
Or here, which contains the statements from the bloggers:
http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/feb/08/edwards_on_the_bloggers_personally_offended_but_believes_in_giving_everyone_a_fair_shake
I’m never quite convinced by “I’m sorry if…” statements.
on February 8th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Grant, I don’t know what Edwards means by saying he was “personally offended.” What’s the “personally” adding here.
Sean, I guess the point is this: One person’s blasphemy is another person’s speaking truth to unjust power, rooted in domination by false gods. I suppose we can live in a world where we each complain about blasphemy from our own perspective, and don’t worry about speaking truth to other people’s false gods. That’s Donahue’s strategy. It’s certainly loud, and I believe, ultimately counterproductive.
It’s no accident that religiously pluralistic societies that value freedom of religion tend to get rid of anti-blasphemy laws. And I don’t see any point in labeling, extrajudicially, everyone who expresses disagreement, or contempt of our religion, as a blasphemer. I think everyone who lives in a pluralistic society ought to assume that other people think that they are seriously mistaken on matters of religion — or lack thereof.
But that doesn’t mean we can’t think about what we owe one another, as people and believers. It is a matter of etiquette. But etiquette is a matter of respect for persons. I think the declaration of religious liberty was polite to adherents of religions other than our own. It wasn’t relativistic–it was poiltie. And I think that politeness was rooted in moral respect for persons as religious believers.
I want to avoid a situation where people feel free to insult –whateer that is — the basic tenets of one another’s belief systems. At the same time, I think those belief systems have to be open to critique in a respectful way, particularly as thety impinge upon social issues.
on February 8th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
So when liberals attack Catholicism, it’s “disagreement.”
But when conservatives (i.e. Bob Jones University,) attack Catholicism, it’s “bigotry.”
If it’s okay to Edwards to keep these bloggers, then Bush’s 2000 appearence at Bob Jones shouldn’t be an issue.
on February 8th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
I am all for etiquette, but it can’t trump Truth.
I will use the following example not because I am trying to stir another issue up but because it is straight forward and illustrates a point. I, and I believe consistent with the teachings of the Church, believe that intentional abortion is a violation of the Fifth Commandment, that it is the unjustifiable and sinful taking of another’s life. Most of the people I know disagree with me. Demands of civility require I not run around willy-nilly confronting everyone with my beliefs and dropping pamphlets on their desks. Civility demands I be courteous and not physically intimidate others even if I am speaking the Truth. But I don’t think civility demands, when engaged in a willing conversation about abortion that I not hold fast and state that abortion is the killing of a human being. I don’t think it requires me to avoid terms like “culture of death.” Others may not like it, but it’s a darned good expression of the horror that comes with over a million dead children every year. I don’t think civility requires us to ignore the tenets of our Faith by, for example, objecting to ostensibly Catholic institutions honoring those that flaunt the Church’s teachings so as not to offend them.
Pluralism, in short, doesn’t require I ignore or soft pedal differences, or even treat other’s beliefs as valid just because they are sincere about them. It only requires I allow them the same opportunity to express and live them as I enjoy (except to the extent they harm others).
It used to be that intolerance and threats to pluralism were found in whips, prison cells, and chains. Now we find them in simply disagreeing with someone.
on February 8th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Thanks, Sean. That helps. The trouble is, of course, that so many fights in the country occur because different people have different ideas of what counts as harming others. You think abortion harms another. Pro-choice activists don’t. You think female circumcision harms another. Some Muslims don’t. The Vatican thinks it harms kids to place them with homosexual parents. Gay activists don’t.
I don’t see intolerance and threats to pluralism in “simply disagreeing with someone.” If Maroctte had simply disagreed with catholic teaching on contraception, I wouldn’t have seen her as intolerant. If you simply disagree with her disagreement, then I wouldn’t see you as intolerant.
I want to locate intolerance and threats to pluralism between “whips and prison cells and chains” and simple disagreement, or even vigorous disagreement.
But where?
on February 8th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Cathleen
I suspect being “personally offended” is like being “personally opposed to abortion”. It means “I am offended/opposed but I am not going to do anything as a result.”
on February 8th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
My sense is — and I apologize if I’m misinterpreting anyone — that there is wide agreement, in this conversation, that the bloggers’ remarks, describing in graphic and vulgar terms the impregnation of Mary, were sufficiently offensive and hateful — and not just to those of tender sensibilities — that someone who wants to be President ought to disavow them, and those who make them.
That said, I think this statement by Cathy captures well the important question: How do we “avoid a situation where people feel free to insult –whatever that is — the basic tenets of one another’s belief systems. At the same time, I think those belief systems have to be open to critique in a respectful way, particularly as thety impinge upon social issues.”
Religiously informed argument and activism should be welcome in — and has a right to be in — the arena of public discourse. But, once it’s there, it enjoys no immunity from fair, intelligent criticism. (The same should be true, I suppose, of arguments that draw on one’s gender-, ethnic-, or other-specific experiences?).
on February 8th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
I apologize for coming in rather late to this conversation, but I have followed it with interest. Many of you may already know about the Civility Project at Johns Hopkins, but in the event that you do not and are interested in the topic of increasing civility in public life, the link is
http://web.jhu.edu/civility
As with many other issues, I find the Buddhists to be rather ahead of the curve on this one. Right Speech, a part of the Noble Eightfold Path, has much to offer. I suspect that what would be most objectionable to some is the idea that our speech should always promote harmony. Many of us would likely find this to be unduly restrictive when it comes to speaking on issues that we find important (e.g. Sean’s discussion of abortion, above). But I think there is an answer. I think Buddhism allows one to speak strong words, but it also counsels that we express regret if our words are found to be upsetting to someone. This does not mean that we regret the choice of words, but that we do regret causing disharmony. One does this because one has an eye on larger goals, beyond simply the importance of what one has to say.
Now, with reference to the bloggers being discussed, there would clearly be a distinction between genuine regret and expedient expressions of regret. Genuine regret would seek to minimize the offense, assuming that it could not be avoided altogether. It does not at all seem that the bloggers sought to minimize the offense that their speech might cause.
on February 8th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
As an occasional reader of Pandagon, what I find objectionable about their treatment of religious conservatives in general is that they have no rhetoric of actually speaking TO religious conservatives. When the blog mentions evangelicalism or Catholicism, it is never in the service of thoughtful change. Mostly they do it to blow off steam in between more thoughtful and reasoned critiques of women’s representation in the media and in politics.
When religion is mentioned, it is inevitably in a clubby in-joke kind of way: we ALREADY KNOW no reasonable person believes any of this, so let me crack you up with the latest wacky thing the conservatives came up with.
But perhaps that is the danger of blogosphere micro-audiences. I find the same sort of cliquey condescension among the crowd at Amy Welborn’s Open Book, who immediately slip into that mode when discussion such travesties as female acolytes and Catholic music in the last 40 years, things they too believe NO REASONABLE PERSON could take seriously.
on February 8th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
This incident brings to mind a question George Will once asked, one that to my mind has never been satisfactorily answered: Why does the left so often disparage what ordinary people consider to be their fundamental interests?
Perhaps it’s because many on the left have a reductionist or materialist view of human nature. Perhaps there are better answers. But it’s genuinely puzzling because it’s done so gratuitously.
on February 8th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
One of the blessings of this dust-up is that it has brought me to this blog, for which I am grateful. I have appreciated reading the diverse opinions here and the thoughtful exchanges regarding this issue.
As a Catholic and a progressive committed to social justice, I have found John Edwards to be the only candidate to forcefully articulate the concerns for the poor, the forgotten, the downtrodden, and the sick in our society. It’s so easy now for Presidential candidates to pay lip service to the middle class while truly serving the very rich; very few even bother to throw some verbal crumbs regarding the plight of the poor. The poor are not a desired political constituency; they’re a minority (compared to the size of the middle class), they’re not culturally “cool”, and they’re far less likely to vote. Edwards has shown courage in making the fight against poverty a central point of his campaign.
That’s not to say he’s my first choice; no one is right now. But he’s certainly demonstrating a contrast to the silence from other candidates on social justice issues, to say nothing of the war.
I also have read Amanda and Melissa for a long time. I don’t see why Melissa has been at all caught up in this; as far as I have seen, there are no examples of her work that even slightly raise to a credible accusation of anti-Catholicism, though she has no tolerance whatsoever for theocrats and “Christofascists” (who are very clearly differentiated in her writing from Christians). The fact that Donohue has conflated Melissa’s work with Amanda’s is not a minor concern. These are two strong, outspoken women - a rarity in the political blogosphere. The fact that they have become targets of a right-wing political group is no surprise.
I am sensitive to the fact that Amanda’s writing has clearly offended some of you. Personally, I’m not offended by it. I have a high tolerance for use of profanity and, having a greater appreciation for the whole of Amanda’s writing, I don’t believe she intended to offend Catholics in those few excerpts cited by people as offensive. That’s not to say that others don’t have a right or reason to be offended. When a religion is also a political entity, how can one criticize Church policy or Church leaders and not be accused of being anti-Catholic? If I criticize the Pope for wearing Prada shoes while a hungry family could be fed for a year on what they cost, does that make me anti-Catholic?
I find pre-emptive war offensive. I find chldren in poverty offensive. I find a rich country that abandons its elderly to be offensive. I find sexual abuse of children to be offensive. I find hunger amid opulence to be offensive. I find opression of women to be offensive. In that context, I don’t at all believe that Amanda’s words rise to the label “offensive”.
Donohue has made a career of claiming that Catholics are victims. He seems to save his vitriol only for those who offend his sensibilities regarding homosexuality, abortion, and contraception, as if that is ALL the Catholic faith is about. He famously castigates “cafeteria Catholics” who disagree with church teachings on sex-related matters, but is curiously silent about Catholics who support pre-emptive war, enriching the rich, the death penalty, and other policis which violate Church teaching.
My perspective is that the Catholic faith is being used as a cudgel by Donohue to score political points here, and I find that truly offensive. Donohue is claiming victimhood status here in order to hurt a political opponent. Frankly, Donohue wouldn’t support Edwards if he hired Jesus himself as a blogger. (He’d probably call Jesus a pinko-commie leftist.) I don’t trust him or his intentions, and I certainly won’t join in his call for condemnation of Edwards or these young women.
If only a self-proclaimed Catholic “leader” like Donohue would spend as much time condemning the war as he does fighting supposed anti-Catholic boogeymen like Amanda and Barbara Walters (his other target yesterday).
on February 8th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
I appreciate the thoughtful comment, Maura. I think you’re right to distinguish between the two bloggers. One question, though. In reference to Marcotte, you say:
I don’t believe she intended to offend Catholics in those few excerpts cited by people as offensive. That’s not to say that others don’t have a right or reason to be offended. When a religion is also a political entity, how can one criticize Church policy or Church leaders and not be accused of being anti-Catholic?
Do you honestly believe her post about the Virgin Mary was not intended to offend? Don’t you think there’s a possible line to be drawn between criticizing the Church’s position (along the lines of the example you give of the Pope’s shoes) and simply making fun of the symbols of the Catholic faith?
on February 8th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
I think Stephen L. Carter’s 1999 work, Civility, is still very much in order here, particularly as he championed the role of religion’s voice in the public square.
Unfortunately, I think he’s right that discourse has degenerated since the Clinton-Dole campaign time and a number of facile coments here exemplify that.
It’s easy enough to claim being offended when we are criticized, so we need a stronger ethic of discourse. (In that, the two bloggers in question cleraly went beyond the pale - apale Mr. Donohue has himself violated.)
We seem to want to excuse almost anything but the crudest in the rough and tumble of politics depending on whose ox is gored.I wonder how you can get folks to buy into things like the John Hopkins project?
As Carter also pointed out, we’re far too busy l;istening to and trumpeting what fits in with oyr own preconceived ideas.
on February 8th, 2007 at 6:48 pm
Maura writes,
” If I criticize the Pope for wearing Prada shoes while a hungry family could be fed for a year on what they cost, does that make me anti-Catholic?
I find pre-emptive war offensive. I find chldren in poverty offensive. I find a rich country that abandons its elderly to be offensive. I find sexual abuse of children to be offensive. I find hunger amid opulence to be offensive. I find opression of women to be offensive. In that context, I don’t at all believe that Amanda’s words rise to the label “offensive”.”
Maura’s words above puts all of this in focus. Amanda certainly will not get any kudos for communication but her incisive, flowery words place into justaposition some interesting ideas or facts.
The glorification of the “Virgin Mary” is designed to deny that semen is necessary or that God made it thus. Nevertheless we have found few things in life that are as pleasurable and uplifting as the “procreative act.” (Such language)
It is certainly relevant that most of those who have shrines of the Madonna outside their homes could not care less about social justice, much less tell you the time of day.
And what about the fact that practically all competent scholarship finds it quite problematic to call Mary a Virgin? And for sure Mary suffered from the “consequences” of original sin just like the rest of us.
And aside from all those churchman, Cyril, Athanasius, Bernard of Clairvoux to mention a few, trying to make Mary a Godess out of their own fantasies, what I ask is wrong with Mary having other children and participating in sexual union?
So the issue is the alienation and subjugation of women and whether Mary, herself, objects to being called Virgin.
So Eduardo the answer to your response to Maura is we don’t approximate the outrage when our brothers and sisters are maimed, killed and malnourished throughout the world, as when we do when some dogma or tenet is ridiculed.
on February 8th, 2007 at 7:10 pm
And I appreciate your thoughtful commentary, too, Eduardo!
I do think there is a line to be drawn between simple criticsm of Church policy as it relates to Plan B/emergency contraception, for example, and making a rhetorical point by invoking deliberately provocative imagery using religious symbols or figures.
Ironically, I once had a heated email exchange with a spokesperson for a prominent anti-abortion group (which calls itself “Catholic”) about this very issue. I had written something opposing legislation requiring women to report miscarriages to police within 12 hours, and at one point in comments related to the post, I must have identified myself as Catholic. He emailed me and, predictably, said I wasn’t at all a Catholic because I was a “baby killer” (sigh). Our exchange focused on EC for one or two posts, when he wrote to me saying that if I had my way, Jesus would have been exterminated through use of emergency contraception since it could be argued that the Virgin Mary was raped by the Holy Spirit.
I was pretty stunned. I wrote back with a somewhat tongue-in-cheek email saying I was quite sure that were the miracle of the conception of Christ to be examined in medical terms, I had faith that an omniscient Holy Spirit would surely know Mary’s ovulation cycle. Therefore, Plan B/EC, which prevents ovulation, would not have worked. I then said it was really surprising to me that he would essentially sexualize Mary and portray the Holy Spirit as a sexual predator in order to score a political point. He never replied.
Was that offensive to me? Personally, the man appointing himself the arbiter of whether I deserved to call myself Catholic was more offensive than his using the image of Mary as rape victim to score political points, but I certainly was surprised by it. I know that parents, who were born in the 1920’s and 1940’s, would be deeply offended by any imagery that sexualizes Mary. Maybe it’s my age (35), but I find it easier to dismiss this sort of thing without being personally offended by it.
I admire the person of Mary as more than a symbol of passive purity and obedience; I see her as a woman who faced tremendous adversity with strength and resilience and faith. I don’t think she needs me or Bill Donohue to defend her image. She’s survived far worse.
Back to my example, though, I don’t think that the anti-abortion leader who wrote to me MEANT to offend my reverence for Mary. He meant to score a political point. I imagine believes he has great respect for Mary.
Likewise, I don’t think Amanda invoked imagery of Mary just to “simply make fun” of her. Clearly, she was trying to make a point about the Church’s position on emergency contraception. I don’t assume her intent was to gratuitously offend people of Catholic faith.
on February 8th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
Maura and Bill,
Do you pray for unborn children who do not survive our abortion mills?
on February 8th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
More deep thoughts from Edwards’ blogger:
[A sarcastic comment]: “Abortion is only wrong if you get caught. Flash your rosary next time and they’ll let you in the back door at the abortion clinic for sure next time.”
http://pandagon.net/2005/11/27/how-lack-of-fiber-destroyed-the-nation-and-other-lessons-in-single-motherhood/
“[T]here’s a pragmatic reason that the Vatican might be a little hesistant to come right out and say that there’s no limbo (definition here, for those who don’t know much about Catholicism) is because the concept is wielded by everyday Catholics to explain where the souls of unborn babies go, which is just an extra way to guilt trip women who have abortions. But it’s sort of a balancing act, as far as I can tell, because as most people understand it, unbaptized children go to limbo but when Jesus returns, they all get to go to heaven. So it’s a way to guilt trip women who have abortions without casting god as such an uncruel monster as to throw souls into hell that never even had a shot at sinning. So that’s limbo: it sucks enough to make women feel guilty about abortion, but it doesn’t suck so much as to run people off.
“I suspect Pope Ratz will give into
the urge eventually to come out and say there’s no limbo and unbaptized babies go straight to hell. He can’t help it; he’s just a dictator like that. Hey, fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly, the Pope’s gotta tell women who give birth to stillborns that their babies are cast into Satan’s maw. The alternative is to let Catholic women who get abortions feel that it’ll all work out in the end, which is just not doable, due to that Jesus-like compassion the Pope is so fond of. Still, it’s going to be bad PR for the church, so you can sort of see why the Pope is dragging ass.”
http://pandagon.net/2006/10/09/limbo-in-limbo/
on February 8th, 2007 at 10:55 pm
Mark,
I pray for one issue Catholics. Do you pray for ‘children’ who are part of a miscarriage.?Bury them? Have wakes for them? Conditionally baptize them?
Are you for contraception?
on February 8th, 2007 at 10:59 pm
Bill — are those mutually exclusive ways of being offended? (I’m responding to your first comment — not this last one.)
on February 9th, 2007 at 12:05 am
Well, Bill Donohue made his demands, and they were not satisfied by John Edwards:
<
“The bloggers are no longer the issue. Edwards is the issue,” Mr. Donohue said in an interview. “We’re going to shadow this guy. This is going to kill his campaign. This is the biggest mistake he’s ever made.”>>
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/08/washington/08cnd-bloggers.html?ei=5094&en=9d1595ac3e8fca1c&hp=&ex=1170997200&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print
But, Bill, I thought you said Edwards was a stand-up guy… His response is telling. Once a political operative…
on February 9th, 2007 at 8:54 am
Bill,
How about the children left to die in Chicago hospital garbage bins because Obama single-handedly stopped the Born Alive act in Illinois no fewer than three times. Can I pray for them? Do you?
on February 9th, 2007 at 9:14 am
Welcome back, MLJ. What happened to your being a middle-aged woman?
on February 9th, 2007 at 10:41 am
MLJ! Egads. You were certainly more appealing as MLJ and now you are just another patriarchal male. But you do remain obsessed with one issue.
If it were not for sharp shooters like Grant, innocent guys like me would be fooled all the time.
Eduardo. Mutually exclusive? Somehow we have to change the language because we are at loggerheads now. Donohue capitalizes about things that people care little about until they are ridiculed.
on February 9th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
Bill Donhue and Bill Mazzella appear to have more in common than their Christian names. I say no more.
on February 10th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
Have you considered how offensive it is that the Catholic Church tries to use the government to force it’s religous beliefs on the citizens of the United States? Let he who is without sin…And why do you continue to allow truly offensive people like Donahue to claim he represents your church? Have you requested his excommunication? Demanded it? Amanda embodies Christian values more than most Catholics I have met in a lifetime of being one.
on February 10th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
Not that I think you’re reading this comments, Squirrel, but it’s folks like you (and perhaps Donohue himself) who want to pretend that Donohue speaks for Catholics, not me. If you had even read this post, or the others on this topic, you’d understand that. Having Donohue be the public face of the Catholic Church is far more convenient for your agenda, which you reveal in the first sentence of your comment, than for mine. So let’s not kid ourselves with your feigned concern for the image of the Catholic community.
on February 11th, 2007 at 9:42 am
Who speaks for Catholics?
Maybe we have judged Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan a bit to harshly. Who are we to judge anyway. That is not our place. We do not really care for their blog style and we are offended by their remarks about Catholics, the Virgin Mary and people of Faith. We are sure however we could find common ground with them though. Should the staff who brought these two aboard at the Edwards Campaign have googled these two a bit more - yes.
Is John Edwards an anti Catholic? No - no candidate out there is speaking to some of the issues central to Catholic Teaching like Edwards is. Sure we have some candidates pushing the usual wedge issues. Edwards however is talking about the least of these and promoting an agenda that address’s the ills of poverty and equality.
Who speaks for Catholics? We do not. Amanda and Melissa do not. John Edwards does not. Nor do Pharasees like William Donohue, Deal Hudson, Mark Shea, Amy Wellborn, Michelle Malkin, Craig Richardson and Dave Hartline. However the Vatican does. The USCCB does. Your Diocesan Bishop does. And you local Parish Priest does. We await the statement of the official Church on this matter - if it even matters to them. We suspect organizations like the “Catholic” League that put such trivial matters on the front page in the name of the Church are more of an embarrassment to the Church than a help.
The “Catholic” League - What is interesting here is the use of “Catholic”. It gives one the impression that this organization is legitimate. It is a 501c3 and employees people who are Catholic. However it is not an official organization within the Catholic Church. It has been suggested that its use of the term “Catholic” is a violation of Canon Law - however we discovered that the organization got its 501c3 under the USCCB sponsorship years ago before that loophole was closed. Interesting since Uncle Bill and his cronies often disparage the USCCB. The term “Catholic” according to Canon law should be reserved for official organizations of the Church. The “Catholic League” is not an official organization of the Catholic Church, nor do they speak as an official voice of the church.
So why does William Donohue get so much attention? He makes himself available to the lazy media. We have discussed this with several producers and booker’s. Uncle Bill does a great job of getting his press release out and making himself available to the media. Often they (the media) are not presented with an alternative voice. Because of today’s fast pace - the media often does not seek out an alternative voice. Uncle Bill also brings entertainment and controversy. This is at times is more important that presenting the facts in today’s media.
So while Uncle Bill does not bring an authentic Catholic voice to the media - he does bring controversy and entertainment. He is not much different than Hulk Hogan.
Prior to William Donohue, the Catholic League provided a useful service to Catholics. Now it has become the vehicle for William Donohues off color bigoted remarks and a way to promote his neo conservative political agenda. A review of his archive of press releases will provide little that is truly Catholic. One will find much division and hatred though.
William Donohue is a great fan of the Mel Gibson movie the “Passion” . We remind Uncle Bill of the scene in the garden where Peter raises his sword against the Roman soldiers. Jesus said “Peter, put up thy sword”. Instead of hate and division, we remind Uncle Bill that what is central to the Catholic faith is the good news of the gospel, love, non violence and “forgiveness”.
Can you imagine the uproar if Sam Brownback has some anti Gays on his payroll?
Are we not a diverse nation? A tolerant nation?
What is a Catholic to do?
on February 11th, 2007 at 9:43 am
http://eamon-matthew25.blogspot.com/2007/02/who-speaks-for-catholics.html
on February 12th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
Looks like this post has taken on a life of its own. Unfortunately, the usual suspects have come forth to trumpet their views about the evil left.
I thought there was consensus that M&M were over the top and needed t oapologize more realistically for their incivility.
I thought the issue was to diminish that incivility and that WD fell into that category as well.
Then the “idiot” issue popped up. I immediately thought of Diogenes in Grant’s posting on the previos discussion on this and how the Jesuit universities were kindegartens for left wing catechetcics. Or some of the attacks on poor deceased Fr. Drinan (pace his eulogy by Fr. langan.) While his adulators might find Diogenes clever, I think “idiotic” (oversimplification) fits that bill of his approach.
Given the “I’m right, your wrong” world the political and media pundits kep pushing at us rules the day, I guess we’ll continue with long posts on this topic. But the dialogue and listening promoted by Bernandin ( avillain to some still?) and Murnion (not a big enough figure to attack, God rest him?) will not permeate the arguments here, - sad to say.
on February 13th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Yikes, Eamon is a little clerical eh, like only the ordained get to be Catholics in public?
FYI, any group can apply to be recognized as “officially” Catholic in the Kennedy Directory, and to use the Catholic name. My own group, Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, is listed there.