Is Bill Donohue bad for the Catholic Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Via_Dolorosa
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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. **
 
Tantum_ergo said:
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!
Thanks for you view on the source. What is your view on the ariticle?
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. **
Click to expand...
 
Tantum_ergo said:
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. **
Click to expand...
Excellent post. 👍
 
He’d only be a bully if he was successful. So far, he hasn’t been. I don’t like him, nor his delivery, but he has the right to do what he pleases.

He doesn’t speak for this Catholic though, and believe it or not, I probably agree with him more than I disagree.
 
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.
 
mjs1987 said:
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.
Click to expand...
No. Some of us think his delivery is over the top and mean, and we are NOT what you think of us, thank you.
 
Rascalking said:
No. Some of us think his delivery is over the top and mean, and we are NOT what you think of us, thank you.
Click to expand...
And what about Christ calling people “hypocrites”, telling folks not to throw pearls before swine(people), and stating that people who refuse to turn from sin should be sent away?

The truth is not about being happy and joyful as the world falls apart. The truth is the truth, and it is often viewed as mean and cruel in a world governed by the truly mean and cruel.
 
Nec5 said:
And what about Christ calling people “hypocrites”, telling folks not to throw pearls before swine(people), and stating that people who refuse to turn from sin should be sent away?

The truth is not about being happy and joyful as the world falls apart. The truth is the truth, and it is often viewed as mean and cruel in a world governed by the truly mean and cruel.
Click to expand...
It may not be, but I prefer to be happy and joyous, like a “happy little Christian soilder”. I’ll save more souls that way then with a fire and brimstone , the world is awful attitude.

It’s an insult to Christ to walk around like that.
 
Rascalking said:
It may not be, but I prefer to be happy and joyous, like a “happy little Christian soilder”. I’ll save more souls that way then with a fire and brimstone , the world is awful attitude.

It’s an insult to Christ to walk around like that.
Click to expand...
Must you paint only the ‘extremes’ as though there is nothing other than ‘happy happy joy joy’ OR ‘fire and brimstone?’

Aren’t there times when happiness is **not appropriate? **Aren’t there times when a 'fire and brimstone attitude is not appropriate? and aren’t there times when happiness is appropriate? and fire-and brimstone is appropriate?

Suppose that you were facing a young Martin Luther or John Calvin. Do you really think that telling them “we can all be happy even though you want to destroy the Catholic Church” is appropriate? You’re giving them the message that what they are doing is okay provided that they ‘make nice’.

Or suppose you are facing a nice young Protestant woman who has joined your prayer outside an abortion facility. You’re both working together --this is not the time to start saying how tragic it is that Protestants get so much ‘wrong’ and how they need to ‘come home to Rome.’ Of course you’d rather she was part of the Catholic Church but here is where you work with the happy ‘solidarity’ of what you have in common FIRST.

There was a lot of ‘sour grapes’ in that article. Lots of name-calling and selective snips out of context, lots of “oh mercy me, how DARE that lazy overpaid lump of ‘bigotry’ dare to ‘foist his values’ onto others’. . .when very likely the editor of the Distorter doesn’t see that he is guilty of worse than bullying --he is using his ‘pulpit’ to libel and sneer at another man and try to foist HIS ‘values’ onto the readers. . . 'you must call this man a bully because I SAY HE IS”. . .

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. **
 
Rascalking said:
No. Some of us think his delivery is over the top and mean, and we are NOT what you think of us, thank you.
Click to expand...
Mr. Donohue is not “mean” enough. He fails to follow through on some of his complaints.

He has pointed out the anti-Catholic bigotry on “The View” many times, yet the anti rants continue day after day.

The ignorance of those women is pathetic. Surely something can be done. Letter and E-mails just aren’t doing it.
 
Yes, he is absolutely bad for the Church. The worst thing is that he allows the media to put him forth as if he were a representative of the Church - which he is not. The article linked to in the OP is spot on, IMHO.
 
No, he is not bad for the Catholic Church. Most of what he says should not even have to be an issue. If Catholics were treated with the same courtesy that other groups are given in this age of political correctness, then Donohue would not be doing what he does. Peter Kreeft is no radical yet he called anticatholicism the last socially acceptable prejudice.

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.
 
Isn’t this the guy that had a fit that a Canadian Park had a Hanukkah display on the other side of a park from a Catholic Crèche?
 
cyberwolf001 said:
Isn’t this the guy that had a fit that a Canadian Park had a Hanukkah display on the other side of a park from a Catholic Crèche?
Click to expand...
I’m not sure about that, but this radio exchange demonstrates why I believe he is not good for the Catholic church.

youtube.com/watch?v=dKLlxAgMO-w

youtube.com/watch?v=mvLPLGHD_OI

Comments like these give the impression of a situational ethic where the end (protecting or justifying his idea of the Catholic church) justifies the means. I don’t think that presents Catholicism in a good light or inclines people to give it the benefit of the doubt.

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?
 
Rascalking said:
He’d only be a bully if he was successful. So far, he hasn’t been. I don’t like him, nor his delivery, but he has the right to do what he pleases.

He doesn’t speak for this Catholic though, and believe it or not, I probably agree with him more than I disagree.
Click to expand...
I agree. I just don’t care for the way he goes about it all. He sometimes comes across as nasty as the people he’s trying to change or educate. I think he could get his message across with a bit more charity.
 
I think he’s great for the church. There’s no one else like him. He’s good for society too. He exposes the bigotry and distorted thinking that has taken over the American consciousness. Even Jews and Protestants like him, because he’s a voice of religion in world trying to erase every vestige of religion. Sure he’s tough and in-your-face, that’s because he challenges all that the secular world holds dear. I wish we had more like him! 👍
 
I run hot and cold on Bill Donahue. I truly believe that the work of the Catholic League is much needed. He is right to point out all anti-Catholic bias and occurrences of Catholic-bashing. However, he is selective in who he goes after, the New York Times, Viacom, and The View being his targets almost in exclusivity. I have complained to the League about anti-Catholic hate speech at the website fark.com, and unlike CAIR and the ADL who have made complaints to the site and have gotten them to remove offensive and slanderous comments, Bill Donahue and the League do not go after it.

In short - -I wish he’d do more

God bless

Tony
 
Via_Dolorosa said:
The National Catholic Reporter calls Bill Donohue a bully.

ncronline.org/news/politics/billy-bully-bad-church

Is this the best voice we have? does anyone belong to his organization?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top