Is Bill Donohue bad for the Catholic Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Via_Dolorosa
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Do you guys (or gals) actually read the New York Times regularly? If so, I can’t believe that you have such a prejudice against it. So often people misinterpret its columns, which are diverse. They think that because a column takes this or that position on an issue, that is the stance of the Times. They have columnists of many different persuasions.

I have read the NYTimes faithfully for more than 40 years. My only gripe is that the price keeps rising.

It is a superb paper! Don’t be influenced by the narrow, prejudiced views of people who repeat what they hear from sources that are intensely biased. Yes, I differ from the Times editorials now and then, but they may not always be right - and I’m certainly wrong sometimes. This is known as freedom of the press, which I - as a patriot - strongly support.

There is no paper that comes close to the coverage supplied by the Times, though I also like USA Today along with a couple area papers. I read five a day - and more, if you count papers I catch on line.
 
jenkiedad said:
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.👍
Click to expand...
I agree mostly with what you say, but take issue with the statement he responds quickly to any slight against the Church with both barrels firing.

Again, I admire the work he does and am thankful for it. BUT – he is at times far too choosy in his targets. He doesn’t go after every slight against the church. I know this from experience in complaining to the Catholic League. At time I feel that if it going to ‘puff’ him up or get him on Fox News, he’ll go after it. If won’t do that, it seems like he could care less.

God bless

Tony
 
Tantum_ergo said:
I 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...
yeah… a point that is often lost in this PC world…

nobody would have liked Jesus if He came today … anymore than they liked Him back then…

but Jesus knew better than to appear to us in THIS day and age… :eek:

😃
 
Tantum_ergo said:
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. **
Click to expand...
You can’t convince people with that attitude that they have. They feel we should be joyful and accept all acts of life, regardless if it’s immoral or not. Sometimes I feel a lot of Catholics need to grow a back-bone.
 
Bill Donohue is one of the best defenders of the faith out there.He has correctly identified homosexuality as the main problem behind the sex scandals.I am greatful to Bill for the many situations that he has defended the faith.Please log on to www.catholicleague.com to get more information.I urge every practising catholic to become a member of the catholic league.May God bless you all.
 
Someone has to stand up to the media and do so with the same style, since folks have become accustomed to getting their news this way.
Thank you God, for Bill Donohue!!
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
Good for them. As was John Paul II. Being a conservative doesn’t equate to having bloodlust.
Click to expand...
yes, have to keep the world safe for terrorists, anti American dictators, rape rooms and governments putting dissidents through wood chippers. Yes… how evil of America…
 
Roy5 said:
Do you guys (or gals) actually read the New York Times regularly? If so, I can’t believe that you have such a prejudice against it. So often people misinterpret its columns, which are diverse. They think that because a column takes this or that position on an issue, that is the stance of the Times. They have columnists of many different persuasions.

I have read the NYTimes faithfully for more than 40 years. My only gripe is that the price keeps rising.

It is a superb paper!
Click to expand...
Is it ever!! I have a daily subscription to it, and read the Wall Street Journal as well.
Don’t be influenced by the narrow, prejudiced views of people who repeat what they hear from sources that are intensely biased.
Click to expand...
I’ve heard the same from some people and when I dig a bit, I find that they didn’t read the paper or the particular editorial, but they “know” it’s totally leftist.
There is no paper that comes close to the coverage supplied by the Times, though I also like USA Today along with a couple area papers. I read five a day - and more, if you count papers I catch on line.
Click to expand...
I read my state-wide daily, too, which is generally conservative.
 
The Reporter is dumb, and I am a faithful Papist Catholic. Let that be my disclaimer.

Bill Donahue is a serious problem for American Catholics, and we would be better off if he retired. His “job,” such as it is, is persuasion, communication, and evangelization. In practice, he is reckless, mouthy, and combative. He does not successfully communicate Catholic teachings, being far too eager to soundbite them, often skewing them in favor of what even those of us who agree with him in principle must call his own personal biases. He has never persuaded anyone to join the Faith, as far as I know, and I know many people whom he has driven off. He is not a good evangelizer, because quite frankly I have to go to considerable effort to see Christ in Bill Donahue, and I’m more sympathetic to his positions than about 99.5% of Americans.

I don’t doubt his good intentions, but the question is “is he bad for the Catholic Church?” Whether he’s good or bad for the Church is not determined by his intent, but by the fruits of his efforts. And those fruits are, as far as I am aware, universally rotten.

Sorry to dissent from the Papist consensus.
 
Aquinas62 said:
yes, have to keep the world safe for terrorists, anti American dictators, rape rooms and governments putting dissidents through wood chippers. Yes… how evil of America…
Click to expand...
Looks like your beef is with Pope John Paul II, who strongly opposed our invasion of Iraq.
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
Looks like your beef is with Pope John Paul II, who strongly opposed our invasion of Iraq.
Click to expand...
…and who thought perhaps the UN could resolve the issues, not knowing (because no one could who wasn’t involved) that the UN was heavily bribed by Saddam. After the war started, however, neither he nor Pope Benedict ever said the war was unjust or immoral.

I realize this isn’t topical, but I didn’t start it, and thought a little balance for the 'lurkers" wouldn’t hurt anything. Given that, perhaps it should stop here. I, for one, do not intend to return to it.
 
The question is, is Donohue bad for the church.

As an outsider looking and listening in, my opinion is yes he is.

I’ve read a lot of his commentary and viewed many clips of him and listened to him on radio.

Nothing about him would ever make me want to find out more about Catholicism, if he was the only channel open to me.

Thankfully he’s not.
 
Wowbagger said:
The Reporter is dumb, and I am a faithful Papist Catholic. Let that be my disclaimer.

Bill Donahue is a serious problem for American Catholics, and we would be better off if he retired. His “job,” such as it is, is persuasion, communication, and evangelization. In practice, he is reckless, mouthy, and combative. He does not successfully communicate Catholic teachings, being far too eager to soundbite them, often skewing them in favor of what even those of us who agree with him in principle must call his own personal biases. He has never persuaded anyone to join the Faith, as far as I know, and I know many people whom he has driven off. He is not a good evangelizer, because quite frankly I have to go to considerable effort to see Christ in Bill Donahue, and I’m more sympathetic to his positions than about 99.5% of Americans.

I don’t doubt his good intentions, but the question is “is he bad for the Catholic Church?” Whether he’s good or bad for the Church is not determined by his intent, but by the fruits of his efforts. And those fruits are, as far as I am aware, universally rotten.

Sorry to dissent from the Papist consensus.
Click to expand...
I agree wholeheartedly. When I saw Donohue on Larry king live, I was ahamed. The media seems to imply that he is the speaker for Catholics. All I can say is, he does not speak for me.
 
Ridgerunner said:
…and who thought perhaps the UN could resolve the issues, not knowing (because no one could who wasn’t involved) that the UN was heavily bribed by Saddam. After the war started, however, neither he nor Pope Benedict ever said the war was unjust or immoral.

I realize this isn’t topical, but I didn’t start it, and thought a little balance for the 'lurkers" wouldn’t hurt anything. Given that, perhaps it should stop here. I, for one, do not intend to return to it.
Click to expand...
Check your facts. You are wrong.
 
mark_a said:
The media doesn’t like him because he uses their style.

God bless Bill Donohue!!
Click to expand...
Are you praising Bill Donohue for acting like the “Leftist Media” most people here, probably yourself (but correct me if i’m wrong), disagree with?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top