Is Bill Donohue bad for the Catholic Church?

[CDelphine]

The people Donohue is bad for besides those he argues against are those Catholics that believe that the church should bend over and take all kinds of attacks that are wrong and unmerited. The people that dislike Donohue are normally those that only believe in a Ghandi-like faith instead of a Christ like faith.

I don’t believe your generalization holds true. In my circle, there are many orthodox Catholics who question Donohue’s style and presentation (and every once in a while, his content). We are definitely not the ‘loopy’-types you’ve described above.

 

[TexCatholic4JMJ]

I agree with most of what Bill Donahue defends. His style may be abrasive, but he is a lot
more willing to accept a sincere apology and correction of the problem. In contrast, others
continue to condemn a past action even if it is resolved.
As for the Reporter, I seldom agree with any of what they write. Anytime I have read it,
there have been articles from dissendent catholics and support for issues that are not
correct teaching.

 

[manygift1spirit]

Is he bad for the Church? Not on the whole. I think he does some good, but I don’t like that he is so heavily relied upon by the MSMedia to rep for the right-teaching of the Church.

Is this the best voice we have? I truly hope not. I find his tone sarcastic and angry, and frankly the writing in many of his press releases could use some refining. And I say this not for purposes of style, but for purposes of clarity and persuasion (ie, evangelization!).

I agree with pretty much all the stands he takes. And I admire his spirit of tenacious defense. I also admire that he is throwing his life and his resources behind his mission.

But I think he imbues his defense of the Church with far too much of his own vitriol and sarcasm. His exposure in the world of media is too big for that. It’s time for him to step up to the next level – and to write and communicate as though he’s not simply defending, but teaching as well.

I pretty much concur with this. He’s well grounded in the positions he takes, and his passion is commendable. But his distinct lack of charity and not uncommon misrepresentation of the sources of the positions he is advocating against undermine his credibility. Do these drawbacks outweigh his accuracy and passion? It is really hard to say, as most people’s answer to that question really pertains only to themselves. Did they respond ‘Hey, what you are talking about should not be happening’ or ‘more proof that the Church is just another political machine’?

That said, I also concur with other posters who point out the poor standards of journalism at the source for the article, and urge extreme caution whenever using it as a source for anything Catholic (except anything John Allen writes – he is usually quite excellent). I laughed when it quoted a Nicholas Kristof plug for the Church. If you go read the original Kristof article the quote came from, you’ll see what I mean.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

National Catholic REPORTER is an extreme left-wing radical newspaper that is barely Catholic. It was founded in the 1960’s as a radical outlet that mimicked the headline design of the National Catholic Register.

In contrast to the National Catholic REGISTER which is traditional orthodox Catholic. It was founded in 1927.

What everyone should do is to join Bill Donohue’s group, Catholic League, and become a life member.

www.catholicleague.com

Take a look at their magazine “Catalyst”]

catholicleague.com/catalyst.php

and at the fabulous work they have done defending Pope Piux XII.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

It is National Catholic Reporter I think does a horrible job or representing the Catholic faith. For me, their criticism is point of approval for any good Catholic.

Your first sentence is your opinion and that’s fair enough.

The second sentence is wrong. We ought to judge a message by the message, not by the messenger, and not make generalizations. There are areas of our faith where both the liberal NCR and the conservative The Wanderer agree. If anyone went by what you said, the same news item would be okay if The Wanderer printed it, but wrong if NCR did.

 

[Nec5]

youtube.com/watch?v=dKLlxAgMO-w

youtube.com/watch?v=mvLPLGHD_OI

One final point for those favourably inclined toward Donohue: if the same approach were being used by someone with a different view of the Catholic church than yours, would you offer as charitable a reading of their efforts?

1. In those clips, Donahue is arguing about a global effort to destroy the Church. He is arguing that the definition of child abuse is far too inclusive and includes things like spanking and the occasional odd comment. Also, things like leather straps for spanking are not necessarily child abuse. In the old days, kids would break off branches/twigs to give to the teacher for spanking. Big deal.

Abuse it may have been, but not sexual abuse, which is what Donahue is distinguishing between.

1. There is no excuse for the Catholic Church’s actions in these sexual abuse matters. The shifting of clergy around is not excusable. External evils cannot be blamed for the abuses that occurred, but we should not ignore them either and the opportunism at play.

In short, Donahue is taking a macro view vs. a micro view. I think he soft pedals some of the culpability for the Church, but he is attempting to add context and fact.

 

[Corki]

In fact, I saw more bullying and nasty sniping from this editor than I do from Mr. Donahue’s posts. All wrapped up in holier-than-thouism. At least Mr. Donahue is trying to speak for what he thinks are the teachings of the Church. . .even if sometimes he may not be spot on.

All THIS editor is trying to speak for is that he dislikes Bill Donahue, and he wants everybody else to call him names and dislike him too.

**and I fail to see how that has ANYTHING at all to do with the teachings of Christ and His Church. **

It’s a bit of irony, isn’t it? Bill Donohue occassionally misses the mark with regard to Church teaching, but even when he does, he’s pretty close. He is definately a strong spoken voice.

He’s being critisized by an outfit that is **usually **off the mark with regard to Church teaching, sometimes to the point of being unrecognizable. NCReporter also has some loud mouth types that could be called bullies.

 

[canadianguy1143]

I haven’t seen Bill Donohue on television that much so I can’t comment much on his style. However, the most disturbing thing I have heard about him and the CCRL is that they are too much in the tank for the Republican party and Fox News.

A few years ago Sean Hannity went viciously at Father Euteneuer because Father had the courage to call out on Sean’s hypocrisy about how Catholic he claimed he was. It was a case screaming to CCRL to pick up the ball with and they did nothing.

However, National Catholic Reporter is a heretical piece of trash who in an ideal world should not be allowed to have the word Catholic on it. I wouldn’t trust them for anything truly Catholic.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I haven’t seen Bill Donohue on television that much so I can’t comment much on his style. However, the most disturbing thing I have heard about him and the CCRL is that they are too much in the tank for the Republican party and Fox News.

A few years ago Sean Hannity went viciously at Father Euteneuer because Father had the courage to call out on Sean’s hypocrisy about how Catholic he claimed he was. It was a case screaming to CCRL to pick up the ball with and they did nothing.

However, National Catholic Reporter is a heretical piece of trash who in an ideal world should not be allowed to have the word Catholic on it. I wouldn’t trust them for anything truly Catholic.

I’m not familiar with the Euteneuer/Hannity thing. Perhaps you could give us a citation or something.

I agree that Donohue’s organization has a proper purpose and that Donohue gives a good account of himself and the Church most of the time. However, his style is, to me, not very attractive. Someone else could say the very same things and not seem so overwrought.

It’s remarkable that the organization is not supported by USCCB. It should be, instead of ACORN and some of the other political organizations to which it gives money.

 

[estesbob]

Your first sentence is your opinion and that’s fair enough.

The second sentence is wrong. We ought to judge a message by the message, not by the messenger, and not make generalizations. There are areas of our faith where both the liberal NCR and the conservative The Wanderer agree. If anyone went by what you said, the same news item would be okay if The Wanderer printed it, but wrong if NCR did.

And both are liberal when comapared to my favorite-The New Oxford review.

 

[Nec5]

I’m not familiar with the Euteneuer/Hannity thing. Perhaps you could give us a citation or something.

I just looked this up on youtube. Maybe this is the conversation?

youtube.com/watch?v=usTWwSbpWRc

Sean sets up a false choice regarding birth control. It’s the old either/or fallacy.

 

[irishpatrick]

Nevermind.

 

[canadianguy1143]

I’m not familiar with the Euteneuer/Hannity thing. Perhaps you could give us a citation or something.

Here it is:

youtube.com/watch?v=usTWwSbpWRc

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

And both are liberal when comapared to my favorite-The New Oxford review.

You won’t see me arguing with you on this one. I’ve read the Review.

 

[Aquinas62]

Apologetics and our Holy Mother Church need all kinds of warriors to defend her. Just as in our military, there are many different jobs and responsibilities, front line troops and rear echelon. so it is the same in apologetics.

Bill Donohue is one type of warrior, needed in certain arenas. We need people like him too.

 

[estesbob]

You won’t see me arguing with you on this one. I’ve read the Review.

it is interesting that they were adamantly opposed to the Iraq war.

 

[livnlern]

I have never agreed 100% with Mr. Donohue and his ‘style’ may be a bit off putting (but then again some people find Father Corapi a ‘bully’). . .

But OTOH the National Catholic “Distorter” is not known for orthodoxy. It’s pretty much a “kum bah ya” crowd-- that is, all sweetness, love, ‘peace out’ provided you’re in lockstep with their ideas. Dare to suggest orthodoxy and you’re branded a bullying ‘medievalist’.

Don’t get me wrong. We always need progress, we cannot live in the past, I don’t expect my life in AD 2010 to be like my fathers in AD 1910. Certain things that we take for granted (hot and cold water, the Internet, the ideals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness etc.) were in short supply historically and I wouldn’t like to return to certain eras or places!

But at the same time, progress doesn’t mean "jettison everything that isn’t absolutely up to date, ‘now’ and ‘happening’ because ‘you can’t trust anybody–or any ‘practice’ over 30 years old’. And too often the Reporter reads more like an issue of the Rolling Stone or Mother Jones. I’m all for hearing ‘both sides’ of a story but the Reporter’s bias/ slant is just too much.

Remember, Jesus wasn’t all that popular when He had to tell people something that **they **didn’t want to hear.

I’m sure that after Jesus whipped the vendors hawking their wares in the temple, that the AD 33 ‘news anchor’ would have had the ‘Reporter’ of the time complaining how ‘this man Christ’ was ‘keeping people from FEEDING THEIR FAMILIES’ while claiming to be such a ‘godly’ person, and they would complain how to "this man Christ’ some ‘stones and a building’ were **more important than some poor, poor man being able to feed his starving children. **

I agree with your opinion of the National Catholic Reporter. Here’s another article on cafeteria Catholics that proves your point:
ncronline.org/blogs/bulletins-human-side/sermon-mount-first-gathering-cafeteria-catholics
In describing Catholics who have a more orthodox view of the church, Eugene Kennedy says:
"To them, “cafeteria Catholics” pick and choose what teachings they will consume instead of stuffing down everything on the house menu, including yesterday’s now rancid specials. These critics favor teachings that do not affirm humans or the universe but those that slap a moral lien on both. For them religion is castor oil for the spirit; it only does you good when it makes you feel bad.

What exactly is a cafeteria and does it remind us of anything? According to the American Heritage Dictionary cafeteria derives from the idea of a “coffee house,’ in which people gather convivially to take food and drink together, an old notion that speaks to moderns, ask Starbucks, they can tell you.”

Sounds like he’s all in it for the warm fuzzy feeling and nothing else…
Bill Donohue is kind of loud and abrasive, but he says a lot of things that need to be said and he stands up against anti-Catholic prejudice, which is rampant in our society. Anyone who thinks it isn’t must never watch TV, movies, or read books or newspapers, because it can be found in each of these things.

 

[Roy5]

Bill Donohue is bad for the Catholic Church. Sometimes his cause may be a good one, but his personality annoys me, and I’m sure many others feel the same way. He comes across as a reverse-bigot, so to speak. And some of his causes are a bit over the edge. Do I even sense a little paranoia?

 I become especially annoyed when he attacks the New York Times. I have read the Times for many years. It is by far the best paper of record in the country. It is quietly courageous, a quality I much admire even if it sometimes carries stories that trouble me. The Church cannot hope to be immune from criticism. As I recall, it was the Boston Globe (owned by the Times?) that first uncovered the scandalous priests in the Catholic Church. Troubling? Of course. But definitely a situation that needed to be exposed, since elements within the hierarchy were exerting enormous pressure to suppress it.

 The major problem, in my view, is his manner of presentation. Is the word crude? Maybe reckless fits sometimes? Let me try a few other words. Coarse. Tactless. Uncouth. Crass. Churlish. Rowdy. Tempestuous. Frenzied. Well, you get the idea. He isn't a good representative of responsible Catholicism.

 

[jenkiedad]

I become especially annoyed when he attacks the New York Times. I have read the Times for many years. It is by far the best paper of record in the country. It is quietly courageous, a quality I much admire even if it sometimes carries stories that trouble me.

Oh PLEASE! I can believe you’re defending the New York Times. If you’ve read it for any length of time (more than 10 yrs) you must know that their slant has increasingly become more left and anti-Catholic. The NYT is no friend of the truth, only of their own spin on the facts.

As far as Bill Donohue goes, although he is a bit gruff, I think it is needed. One thing I admire about Mr. Donohue is that he responds quickly to any slight against the Church with both barrels firing. The USCCB, on the other hand, takes weeks to respond (if they ever respond) to attacks on the Church.

 

[Nec5]

It is by far the best paper of record in the country. It is quietly courageous, a quality I much admire even if it sometimes carries stories that trouble me.

Wow. It hasn’t been a paper of record for a very long time.