Is Bill Donohue bad for the Catholic Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Via_Dolorosa
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Monte_RCMS said:
Yes.

I have seen him on television and when he defends the Church, he fails to speak in Latin.

His daughter, Ann, was so upset that she quit the Catholic Church and joined the militant wing of Episcopalienism and also changed her name.

To Coulter.

I made that up.]

[But, you have to admit, there is a very strong familial resemblance => genetic similarity?? The two of them MUST be related. Just look at their vocabulary! My goodness, how can they NOT be related!! ]

Anyway, visit www.catholicleague.com and become a Life Member. Read the magazine. And buy the books defending Pope Pius XII.
So, just send Mr. Donohue your whole and entire paycheck. So he can continue his defense of the Church and continue attacking militant atheists and smiting harbingers of bad taste and scruffy logic. And perhaps he and Ann will be reconciled so she can afford to buy food. [She really needs to add a couple of pounds.]

And besides, I’m tired of fighting the good fight of faith and it’s fun to sit back and watch someone else pugilize.*

Good Advice, I will become a life member…
Click to expand...
 
OriginalJS said:
Bill Donohue sounds like a product of a 1950’s Catholic high school apologetics course who hasn’t matured in the last half century or so. In short, he is an anachronism. His style just doesn’t sit well anymore.
Click to expand...
Yeah. He does make some interesting points from time to time. But many times it seems to me like a more sophisticated approach is warranted.
 
OriginalJS said:
Bill Donohue sounds like a product of a 1950’s Catholic high school apologetics course who hasn’t matured in the last half century or so. In short, he is an anachronism. His style just doesn’t sit well anymore.
Click to expand...
While I can’t speak to a high school course in the 50’s, I’ve read Rumble and Carty’s radio replies and they were able to clearly defend the teachings of the church without compromising them, while at the same time showing respect for those who disagreed with them and acknowledging challenging issues for Catholicism when they came up.

That’s while I believe Catholics should hold out for better than Bill Donohue, he doesn’t realize as they did, that leading people to reject your answer by your behaviour has the same result as not having given an answer in the first place.
 
Guyonthestreet said:
nytimes.com/2009/05/15/nyregion/15donohue.html?_r=1

The above article refers to the fact BD is divorced.

:confused:

I stand to be corrected, but I thought catholics couldnt get divorced?

Annulled - yes. Divorce - no.

Am I wrong in this?

:confused:
Click to expand...
Yes, you are wrong. Divorce is a civil matter, an annulment is a Catholic Church matter.
In an annulment, there is a declaration that the marriage lacked sufficient important
conditions to fulfill a valid sacrament.
 
estesbob said:
As long as he does not re-marry without an anullment there is no problem from the Church’s standpoint.
Click to expand...
This is not true. Unless there is an extenuating circumstance (abandonment, canon law exceptions as mentioned in the catechism), divorce is considered immoral.
 
I saw Donohue on some Tv news show this morning. This time he is going after the Empire State Building for not having blue and white lights on to honor Mother Theresa. That apparently is a sign of anti-Catholicism.
Code: 
Now, I have considerable admiration for the work of Mother Theresa, though I confess to some confusion about her many years in spiritual darkness (which came out after her death).  It made me wonder a bit about her continuing commitment to Christ. 

Anyway, Donohue came on as his usual trigger-happy self. Everything and everybody seems to be after the Catholic Church. He is the valiant defender, because even Catholics at such places as Notre Dame are determined to undermine that one true faith. Paranoia? Or, maybe it's his pathway to publicity? I don't presume to judge.

 In any case, my own view is that for every Catholic he gratifies vicariously, he alienates a number of other Catholics, not to mention many Jews, Protestants and others. He comes across as a rude, bigoted man who intensifies suspicions of Catholicism where they already exist. They ask: wow, if Donohue called the shots in the USA we'd have a country where one faith is established, contrary to the Constitution and freedom of religion. I believe he raises afresh concerns about the 'true intentions' of the Catholic Church in America. He is an embarrassment, a divider of Catholics, and, in reality, a promoter of anti-Catholicism rather than a legitimate defender of the faith.
 
The main point he is making, is that the Empire State Bldg recently celebrated Communist Chinas 60th anniversary. but refuses to do the same for Mother Theresas 100th birthday. Why do you think that is?
 
Roy5 said:
I saw Donohue on some Tv news show this morning. This time he is going after the Empire State Building for not having blue and white lights on to honor Mother Theresa. That apparently is a sign of anti-Catholicism.
Click to expand...
I checked in multiple articles. I can not find that he called it anticatholicism. He did ask that the lights be red and blue to coincide with the release of her postage stamp. When he was denied, he started a petition.

FYI - Among her many awards, she received a Nobel Prize, a Congressional Medal of Freedom and a Presidential Medal of Freedom. She was made an honorary citizen by President Clinton. Also, lighting the building to honor a special occasion is done from time to time.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_State_Building
The building was lit green for three days in honor of the Islamic holiday of Eid ul-Fitr in October 2007. The lighting, the first for a Muslim holiday, is intended to be an annual event[51] and was repeated in 2008 and 2009. In December 2007, the building was lit yellow to signify the home video release of The Simpsons Movie.[52]
From April 25—27, 2008 the building was lit in lavender, pink, and white in celebration of international pop diva Mariah Carey’s accomplishments in the world of music and the release of her eleventh studio album E=MC2.citation needed]
In late October 2008, the building was lit green in honor of the fifth anniversary of the acclaimed Broadway Musical Wicked by Kerry Ellis and Stephen Schwartz.[53]
Starting in 2008, the building along with New York City and many other cities around the world, participated in Earth Hour. The skyscraper’s floodlights were turned off for exactly an hour to conserve energy.
In September 2009, the building was lit for one night in orange colors, in celebration of the exploration of Manhattan Island by Henry Hudson 400 years earlier. The Dutch Prince Willem-Alexander and his wife Princess Máxima were present and turned on the lights from the lobby.
In 2009, the building was lit for one night in red and yellow, the colors of the Communist People’s Republic of China, to celebrate the 60 years since its founding, amid controversy
Click to expand...
 
Nec5 said:
This is not true. Unless there is an extenuating circumstance (abandonment, canon law exceptions as mentioned in the catechism), divorce is considered immoral.
Click to expand...
Ok, well then I’m still confused, because from what I’ve read, a divorce must preceed an annulment.
These are the grounds for civil annulments. Within the Roman Catholic Church, a couple may obtain a religious annulment after obtaining a civil divorce, so that one or both people may remarry, within the church or anywhere else, and have the second union recognized by the church.
Click to expand...
bankruptcy.findlaw.com/divorce/divorce-decision/annulment-separation.html
 
Let me say that when the USA puts out a Mother Theresa stamp that should be appreciated without trying to force something on a private corporation like the Empire State Building. Mother Theresa was not an American, and frankly, I’m trying to think when a non-American last appeared on a US stamp. Well, except that every Christmas Jesus and Mary are on a stamp. And I recall one carrying the picture of Father Flanagan.
Code: 
Rather than complain, I would be grateful. Oh, and I saw the interview and I seem to recall that Donohue, as usual, raised the issue of discrimination against Catholicism. His usual battlecry that alienates so many. If we didn't hear it so often perhaps it would be more effective. 

 Why isn't he celebrating the fact that Catholics are now the majority on the Supreme Court which soon will have no Protestants - 6 Catholics, 3 Jews. And all those Catholics were appointed by Protestant presidents and confirmed by a Protestant-majority Senate?
Why aren’t Protestants yelling their heads off in protest? Compare that to the crazy talk of Donohue.
 
Does the catholic church not have any other organisations to speak up for it in the main stream media?
 
Nec5 said:
This is not true. Unless there is an extenuating circumstance (abandonment, canon law exceptions as mentioned in the catechism), divorce is considered immoral.
Click to expand...
That’s right. Divorce is immoral and contrary to family life. Why does the Catholic league have a man who abandoned his wife and divorced her as its mouthpiece for Catholics in the USA. This destroys any credibility he had with me.
 
I agree with post 52, and so thank you for your honesty.

Positions are one thing, style another. When style conflicts with the central message of a religion, it’s a problem. Backbone and goodwill are not mutually exclusive. It takes some skill to register anger – when justified (or biblically ‘righteous’) – in a dignifed manner. Why is that important? Because you lose credibility when you lose self-control.

I’m amazed how often Raymond Arroyo engineers opportunities to put BD on ‘The World Over.’

I also have to agree with the ‘possible paranoia’ comment made by another poster. BD often does come off that way. I do an awful lot of reading and listening. So often when BD drops some remark about some conspiracy embedded in some recent or (just as often) not-very-recent event, I feel embarrassed to be listening and wonder what non-Catholics must think of this “representative” of Catholicism, and just how intellectually stable he is.
 
Elizabeth502 said:
I agree with post 52, and so thank you for your honesty.

Positions are one thing, style another. When style conflicts with the central message of a religion, it’s a problem. Backbone and goodwill are not mutually exclusive. It takes some skill to register anger – when justified (or biblically ‘righteous’) – in a dignifed manner. Why is that important? Because you lose credibility when you lose self-control.

I’m amazed how often Raymond Arroyo engineers opportunities to put BD on ‘The World Over.’

I also have to agree with the ‘possible paranoia’ comment made by another poster. BD often does come off that way. I do an awful lot of reading and listening. So often when BD drops some remark about some conspiracy embedded in some recent or (just as often) not-very-recent event, I feel embarrassed to be listening and wonder what non-Catholics must think of this “representative” of Catholicism, and just how intellectually stable he is.
Click to expand...
Quick FYI (only because it took me quite a while to figure it out) When one wants to refer
to a previous post, hit the “Quote” button on the right bottom of the post. It allows you to
then make a response with the quote showing.

All that because I had to refer back to post 52 to figure out your agreement with poster.

I, too, do a lot of reading and listening, but, unlike you, find myself saying “Thank God
Bill Donahue got after them.” Yes, his manner and presentation is not mine. I don’t
think enough of us get upset about some of the things that he brings up. Would he
be effective if his manner were different? I don’t know, but I’m grateful for the things
that have not continued to occur because he brought the subject up. Would he be a
guest on as many secular shows as he is now if he were calm and collected? NO!

I have NEVER heard him make any statement that was a wrong teaching. Some cafeteria
Catholics might not like their feathers ruffled, but he speaks the truth. Furthermore, he
is as quick to notify the public when the situation is resolved as he was to bring it up.
Sound bites taken out of context are the way of the media when it comes to the abuse
scandal, for an example, and to use sound bites with the truth reaches more people
that wouldn’t wait to read/hear the whole thing. As for his being an evangelizer, not in
the strictest sense, but hearing the truth about the church will reach some in his “no
nonsense” manner. There are those of us who do it in different ways, but the worst
fact is that there are far more who are indifferent and do nothing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top