I know Bill Donahue does not speak for all Catholics. But I kinda wish the rest of us could come up with a way to sit on him until he stops embarrassing the faith. There’s seventy million of us in this country, give or take a lapse. We could go in shifts. Make it an event at the parish picnic.
The latest conniption Donahue is throwing concerns the invitation of Bitch Ph.D. and Towleroad, as press-bloggers, to the Democratic convention. His complaint about the latter seems to be that the site is aimed at gays and criticized the trim of the robe of the Pope. Fashion criticism of the Holy See was cited in Anselm’s Proslogion as one of the seven mortal sins.
Even better (by which I mean even more asinine) are the reasons for protesting B’s inclusion: she finds circus balloon Jesuses to be offensive, which I’m reading as “tacky as all get out.” What’s beautiful about this? That it’s identical to the complaint Donahue & company made themselves about the Chocolate Jesus sculpture.
I could riff for a while on the metaphysical importance of permitting the Crucifixion to be depicted in squeaky latex but not luscious chocolate. I could go on about how watered down the concept of “defamation” must be if someone saying ‘I’m a really crappy Catholic…” counts as an offense.
But I think I’m going to just stand in silence and in awe, brought low before the majesty and the hilarity. On second thought, just one little question for Donahue: how bad was your religious education that you thought you were supposed to emulate the whiny letter-of-the-law types in the Gospels?
The Edge of the American West 
67 comments
August 18, 2008 at 11:08 am
Vance Maverick
We’ve been here before. Any reason to think Donohue won’t win again this time?
August 18, 2008 at 11:12 am
dana
1) Not affiliated with a campaign.
2) Even more ridiculous than the last dust-up. I mean, really, does he want to be the guy that defended balloon jesus?
August 18, 2008 at 11:13 am
ari
the guy that defended balloon jesus
I do! I do! Oh, I thought you were looking for volunteers.
August 18, 2008 at 11:17 am
eric
Technically, “Donohue.”
August 18, 2008 at 11:18 am
ari
Kidding aside, can there be any doubt at this point that people like Donohue, Abraham Foxman, and their ilk are a net negative for their respective causes? Except insofar as their respective causes amount to little more than enriching themselves and their friends. And no, I’m not sure who else to include in “their ilk.”
Too harsh? I think not.
August 18, 2008 at 11:20 am
Vance Maverick
I’d like to think your #1 mattered, Dana. But the Dems are surely just as afraid of looking like the party of irreligion (by contrast to the party of “next to of course god america”) as Edwards was of looking like the campaign of irreligion.
Your #2 should matter (especially since B, in that post, was affirming Catholic piety!) but I’m skeptical there too.
August 18, 2008 at 11:22 am
dana
We’ll see. For now I’m content with being thoroughly amused.
August 18, 2008 at 11:25 am
ari
The really interesting question, it seems to me, will be whether msm journalists stick up for the bloggers or hang them out to dry. Will, for instance, someone at the LA or New York Times write that Donohue’s attack on B is really an attack on opinion journalists everywhere? Or will those papers simply report the story, granting Donohue column inches to vent his bile, and then go to B for a quick pull quote in response?
August 18, 2008 at 11:57 am
Artemis
In my ideal world, the msm would either stop crediting Donohue altogether as the sole Catholic spokesperson or find other, respectable Catholic voices that contradict his. How on earth did he convince people that he speaks for all Catholics?
August 18, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Sybil Vane
The msm isn’t, like, covering this nonsense, right? That seems almost too much to hope for.
August 18, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Vance Maverick
So far, no Google-blessed MSM. (Steve Benen and Queerty.)
August 18, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Roman Catholic Thug Bill Donohue wants to control free speech. – Political Byline
[…] The Edge of the American West, Right Wing Watch, The Carpetbagger Report and […]
August 18, 2008 at 12:27 pm
kid bitzer
donohue, foxman, and their like may be net negatives for the causes they claim to champion, but they can still do a lot of damage to the people they target. (it’s bad for the jews, *and* bad for the people foxman labels anti-semites, too–kind of a lose-lose situation!)
they have not yet reduced themselves to a status from which their opposition actually makes their opponents look better, or at least not to a very large population.
worse, by being constantly shrill and right-wing, they move the window towards the shrill and right-wing. that’s the real damage: donohue gives cover for a lot of religions bigots, by being an even bigger religious bigot himself.
August 18, 2008 at 12:42 pm
eric
Could we just remember who we’re talking about here?
August 18, 2008 at 12:53 pm
kid bitzer
damn it, eric: that’s a patently obscene comment!
August 18, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Vance Maverick
Granted, Eric, Donohue is a nut who represents nobody. So what? He seems to have real-world effects.
August 18, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Mike
Artemis asks a important question, but it seems to me that the answer lies less with the MSM than with the Church. Donahue has been belching nonsense on cable news for years, but to my knowledge no one in the Church hierarchy has offered any sort of rebuttal. It’s hard to believe that the Church is unaware of him. While he certainly doesn’t speak for all Catholics, until the Church stands up on its hind legs and shouts him down, it seems fair to say that he does speak for the Church. I’m just sayin’…
August 18, 2008 at 1:34 pm
kid bitzer
mike is right: why do we never hear from the alleged voices of moderate islam?
uh, i meant “progressive catholicism”.
August 18, 2008 at 1:39 pm
eric
So what?
So I just think it’s incumbent upon us to point out important and interesting facts about the person offering the criticism.
August 18, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Magpie
The Bay Area used to have a media priest, at least until the mid-late 80s, who represented Catholicism rather than right-wing nutjobbery. Did other areas have something like this? Maybe it’s time to do some recruiting at that church picnic.
I’m actually pretty impressed that B has gotten threatening enough to draw the ire of Donohue and his ilk, though. Go, B!
August 18, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Colin
Congratulations BPhD. This also throws the deficiencies of EOTAW into relief: too many wholesome golden retrievers, not enough men in their underwear.
August 18, 2008 at 2:50 pm
ari
not enough men in their underwear
A request? Also, who says we’re not in our underwear?
August 18, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Mike
Just to be clear: there is a crucial distinction to be made here. Unlike kid’s “moderate islam,” or Abe Foxman for that matter, Bill Donahue belongs to a faith led by a clearly defined hierarchy with clearly defined doctrinal boundaries, and submission to that authority is a requirement of the faith. For two thousand years the Church has jealously guarded its prerogative to define orthodoxy, in recent centuries with particular enthusiasm through first the Inquisition and then its successor the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The current pope spent a good chunk of his career as Prefect of the latter office. When the Church wants to, it makes its will known. Last fall six nuns no one ever heard of were excommunicated for heresy in Arkansas, and just three weeks ago several women in Boston were threatened with the same for even thinking about being ordained as priests. To put it another way, there are many within Judaism who might criticize Foxman, but no one has the authority to tell him to knock it off. That’s not the case with Donahue.
August 18, 2008 at 3:20 pm
kathy a.
a lot of the good that catholics have accomplished has happened without the blessing of the pope. and anyway, the dude seems to be busy — hell, just getting dressed for the day has got to take hours.
but to get to the point — when nutjobs go off on bloggers on frivolous issues, i’m not sure it is in anyone’s interest [besides the nutjob] for msm to elevate that to a controversy worth broadcasting on the nightly news. this particular person seems to have more broadcast-traction than necessary. is there seriously a pressing national need to do pros and cons on balloon representations of jesus?
August 18, 2008 at 3:31 pm
ari
kathy, I wasn’t suggesting that it was an important story, or even really a story at all. But given that Donohue put out the press release, the open question remains: will the press bite, and if so, how will the story be spun?
August 18, 2008 at 3:37 pm
kid bitzer
interesting point, mike.
August 18, 2008 at 4:18 pm
dana
While he certainly doesn’t speak for all Catholics, until the Church stands up on its hind legs and shouts him down, it seems fair to say that he does speak for the Church.
No, it’s really not. He’s not part of the hierarchy; he’s not a priest. He doesn’t have any credentials to revoke. He’s not committing heresy. That pretty much limits what the Church can do, formally.
What are they supposed to call him out for? Most of what he does is throw conniption fits over perceived insults. As much as I would love to see an encyclical saying ‘Please grow up and find a real social cause’, it’s also not all that surprising that there’s no official censure for throwing a conniption.
This is exactly in ‘but the top imam didn’t call out X’ territory.
August 18, 2008 at 4:25 pm
kid bitzer
but there is an intermediate possibility, dana:
rome could come out and say “bd is not part of the hierarchy; he is not a priest or any other accredited spokesperson of the roman catholic church”.
and they don’t, which is a point in mike’s favor.
August 18, 2008 at 4:38 pm
dana
I don’t know, kb. Donahue isn’t claiming to be part of the hierarchy or an accredited spokesman. And I’m not sure he’s that big of a deal. He thinks he is, and Fox News thinks he is, but worldwide? I don’t think he’s someone anyone in my home parish would take seriously.
I really prefer the Church sticking to policing its own doctrine and hierarchy and staying out of politics, personally.
August 18, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Alex
Love it!
August 18, 2008 at 5:00 pm
kid bitzer
yeah, but he is a big enough deal to have made the edwards campaign throw overboard a couple of bloggers.
that didn’t happen only because of bd’s whining; he must at least have mobilized some phone callers, or some a.m. radio loud-mouths.
again–it’s the connections; donohue says crap like this, and that gives o’reilly or limbaugh a new topic for a rant.
should the church come out and say something about him? well, far be it from a bitzer to dictate to rome, but when bd calls himself the ‘catholic league’, they should be worried about infringement on their patent, or dilution of their trademark. that ought to concern them.
unless, of course, they basically like what he is saying, and/or the fact that he is saying it.
August 18, 2008 at 5:00 pm
urbino
But part of the Church’s doctrine pertains to how Christians relate to those around them. While not quite in these words, I’m pretty sure “Don’t be a gaping asshole” is in there somewhere.
It is well within the Church’s purview to issue a statement saying, “Because Mr. Donohue is receiving much publicity as some manner of Catholic spokesman, we feel it necessary to point out that Mr. Donohue is not a member of the clergy, a monk of an approved order, or a church theologian, and does not speak for the Catholic Church, Catholicism, or any Catholics other than those who explicitly support his organization. We find Mr. Donohue’s manner of “defending” the faith troubling and counterproductive, and encourage him to express his faith in a manner more in keeping with the teachings and example of Christ, as it is readily found in Church doctrine.”
They haven’t issued such a statement. They haven’t issued any statement, AFAIK. Frankly, I agree with Mike.
And, of course, the media use him because he’s noisy and provocative, always available, and heads an organization that represents a substantial number of Catholics.
August 18, 2008 at 5:01 pm
urbino
My comment is in response to dana @ 4:38.
August 18, 2008 at 5:10 pm
dana
“that ought to concern them.”
Why? They have official spokesmen. (it’s, like, a position.)
We may just have to disagree on this, but if the question is whether ‘haha we can conclude that donahue is authorized by the vatican because they didn’t bother denouncing him’ as opposed to ‘not really caring about what some layman chooses to freak out about’, I think the evidence really points to the latter. They don’t normally run around saying ‘so and so isn’t really Catholic and doesn’t really speak for us’ and by and large I think that’s a good thing.
August 18, 2008 at 5:14 pm
dana
“While not quite in these words, I’m pretty sure “Don’t be a gaping asshole” is in there somewhere.”
Also not usually part of the normal goings-on. Catholics are generally free to be assholes without the Pope weighing in on it. They’re free to be ‘crappy Catholics’, too, without being publicly chided.
Don’t get me wrong, I think it would be great in this particular instance, mostly because it would be great to have Donahue have a meltdown and it would be as funny as hell.
August 18, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Ben Alpers
The really interesting question, it seems to me, will be whether msm journalists stick up for the bloggers or hang them out to dry.
Sounds like it’s time to call for another blogger ethics conference!
Lee Siegel, are you skulking around here somewhere?
August 18, 2008 at 5:30 pm
kid bitzer
i agree that we cannot infer that he is covertly ‘authorized by the vatican,’ and i don’t think he is anyhow. (in fact, rereading it, i think i disagree with mike’s statement that “it seems fair to say that he does speak for the church”. i think he speaks with their knowledge and toleration, but that’s not the same thing. i also think he says things that the church agrees with, but that is still not the same as ‘speaking for’ the church.)
but go back to mike’s response to my joke about muslims: he points out that there is an asymmetry between the jewish & muslim cases on the one side, and the r.c. case on the other. where the first two have no institutional mechanism for even saying something like “x does not speak for our faith as a whole”, the roman church actually does.
and i agree with him that this makes the argument from silence *more* cogent in the case of rome, than when it is trotted out against the imams.
August 18, 2008 at 5:31 pm
dana
I hope the media journalists stick up for the bloggers, especially because Donahue’s argument (I use the term lightly) is that whether people are good Catholics should decide whether they are given press passes.
I’m not holding my breath, though.
August 18, 2008 at 5:36 pm
kid bitzer
hmmm…it occurs to me to wonder how rome dealt with father coughlin, who was undeniably and even more obnoxious case than bill d is, and was certainly accountable to the hierarchy. what does wikipedia say…?
“Boyea (1995) shows that the Roman Catholic Church did not approve of Coughlin. The Vatican, the Apostolic Delegation in Washington, D.C., and the archbishop of Cincinnati all wanted him silenced. They recognized that only Coughlin’s superior, Detroit Bishop Michael Gallagher, had the canonical authority to curb him, but Gallagher supported the “Radio Priest.” Due to Gallagher’s autonomy and the prospect of Coughlin leading a schism, the Roman Catholic leadership did nothing.”
interesting…the cite is to an article in the ’95 “Catholic Historical Review”, so that might merit some further looking, but if the claim holds up, then it suggests that rome does not step in even when the situation is far more egregious than it is with bd.
which would support dana’s view.
August 18, 2008 at 5:40 pm
dana
Yeah, the flipside of ‘but they have a hierarchy to deal with this’ is ‘they have a bureaucracy to go with the hierarchy.’ It’s kind of like a university, come to think of it.
August 18, 2008 at 5:46 pm
kid bitzer
knowing next to nothing of canon law, i’m intrigued by the claim quoted from the boyea article that rome could not squelch him without going through his local bishop. that’s a degree of, as it were, federalism, that i had not imagined in the r.c. church. i had thought power was more centralized.
i mean, giving the bishops power? what are they episcopalians?
August 18, 2008 at 5:53 pm
dana
i had thought power was more centralized.
I’m in the knowing next-to-nothing camp, too, but historically, this hasn’t always been the case in bureaucracy matters. Technically, the Pope is just the Bishop of Rome; some extra duties, etc., but as far as the hierarchy goes, day-to-day management is the job of the local bishop. (historically, on the grounds that Rome was far away and the local bishop was going to have to deal with the fallout.)
August 18, 2008 at 6:29 pm
urbino
Catholics are generally free to be assholes without the Pope weighing in on it.
Catholics are “generally” not constantly on tv representing themselves as spokespeople for Catholics. And while the pope generally doesn’t personally weigh in, Catholics, like all Christians, are not really free to be assholes. Many of them are assholes, but it’s in contravention of core Christian doctrine and teaching. Unlike many churches, the RCC does have a strong hierarchy and mechanisms for enforcing doctrine when it wishes to.
I don’t think anybody’s calling for Donohue’s excommunication, but a public admonishment to conduct himself more in the spirit of Christ would be well within the Church’s jurisdiction. Essentially, this is what the Church is doing every time it weighs in on a cultural, moral, or political issue: calling on the relevant parties to behave more in the spirit of Christ. It’s what they’re doing when they call out specific leaders whose nations are involved in a conflict.
And since Donohue, unlike Father Coughlin, is not a priest, the bureaucratic issues are, ISTM, unlikely to be as relevant.
August 18, 2008 at 6:45 pm
dana
And since Donohue, unlike Father Coughlin, is not a priest, the bureaucratic issues are, ISTM, unlikely to be as relevant.
The basic hierarchy stuff still applies, even to the laity. But here I think is the main issue:
Unlike many churches, the RCC does have a strong hierarchy and mechanisms for enforcing doctrine when it wishes to.
I don’t think being a whiny baby like Donahue has anything to do with doctrine. There is no doctrine of the balloon Jesuses. There is no doctrine about how one is to respond to balloon Jesuses. And if we’re down to the RCC saying ‘please don’t act like a whiny baby’… well, it’s not a direction I’d like to see, generally.
August 18, 2008 at 7:56 pm
R
From a 1999 NYT Article:
I also like this Donohue quote from the article:
Also a long article on the Catholic League from Catholics for Choice and <a href=”http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2006/237/279/2006-237279981-037482be-9.pdf”.2006 Financial filing (a good year for them assets went from $8M to $22M, Donohue’s salary was 300K+.
August 18, 2008 at 7:58 pm
JP Stormcrow
Opps, that was me. And last link should be this.
August 18, 2008 at 9:05 pm
urbino
And if we’re down to the RCC saying ‘please don’t act like a whiny baby’… well, it’s not a direction I’d like to see, generally.
The RCC already says that. It’s basic Christian doctrine. It’s just a question of whether they’re going to publicly remind one of their [most public] members of what they teach in the churches as a matter of course.
August 18, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Mike
“They don’t normally run around saying ’so and so isn’t really Catholic and doesn’t really speak for us’…”
Actually, they do. That’s part of the purpose behind the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. And technically, Donohue is a member of the hierarchy: the laity is simply the lowest position within it. (The catechism often uses the body as a metaphor for the Church and all those who live in it: ‘We are all knit together as one body.’ ‘The hands and feet follow the head.’) For him, disobeying a priest is analogous to a priest disobeying a bishop, and for that he might be sanctioned. There are many ways someone like Donohue might be sanctioned, short of outright excommunication. For instance, he might be denied communion (as the bishop of St. Louis threatened to do to John Kerry in 2004 and to Rudy Giuliani last year). But I wasn’t suggesting anything so extreme. Urbino (at 5:00) makes my point far better than I did: it would be a simple thing to announce that Donohue speaks for a fringe minority within the Church and gently chide the networks for lending a platform to such an obvious nut. After all, as Dana points out, they have official spokesmen for just such occasions (which sort of undermines the ‘but the top imam didn’t call out X’ territory’ issue). They have the capacity to speak and yet they remain silent and allow Donohue to stand as the only Catholic voice on the air. They really don’t even have to shut him up–merely sounding halfway sane in comparison would do a great deal to help heal the Church’s wounded reputation. The Boyea article cited by kid is instructive here. As Boyea points out, those who disliked Coughlin hesitated to shut him down in part because so many in the Church hierarchy agreed with him and actively prevented censure. Is that what’s happening here? I honestly don’t know. But given the Church’s well-established penchant for inserting itself into even the most local of squabbles, it’s kind of weird that Donohue is the best known and most ubiquitous Catholic spokesman in the nation with the world’s third largest Catholic population.
August 18, 2008 at 9:42 pm
dana
I don’t think there’s a duty to not be a whiny baby (I guess it falls under prudence, maybe?); but even if it were, let’s not pretend this is about some duty to admonish Donahue about the state of his soul (which wouldn’t require a public denunciation.)
Because surely you can’t think that public remonstrance is going to be appropriate if this were just about ‘basic Christian doctrine.’ I mean, do you want that extended to all Catholic public figures? Because I have to say, the shenanigans around Kerry’s pro-choice stance and whether he should take communion or not was absolutely ridiculous. I don’t think we need *more* of that.
The question here was whether it was fair to say that the RCC was accepting Donahue as a spokesman and tacitly endorsing his views because they didn’t reject and denounce him publicly. (Normally we reject these renounce and denounce and reject and deject kind of arguments…) I still think that’s a bad argument.
August 18, 2008 at 9:51 pm
dana
After all, as Dana points out, they have official spokesmen for just such occasions (which sort of undermines the ‘but the top imam didn’t call out X’ territory’ issue)
Not really. There’s no top imam, but each has his own domain and sphere of influence. Much like, say, the person who would be responsible for educating Donahue, his local priest or bishop.
But given the Church’s well-established penchant for inserting itself into even the most local of squabbles, it’s kind of weird that Donohue is the best known and most ubiquitous Catholic spokesman in the nation with the world’s third largest Catholic population.
I’m not sure that he is, but grant that: I think it’s surely in part that the guy has made his career out of freaking out over nothing, and the media loves to cover shitstorms. His money is entirely from lay donations. No one else is freaking out about what he freaks out about, so what is there to say? Who is the media going to interview?
“Fr. Brown, SJ of Duke University says ‘I’d never heard of Balloon Animal Jesuses. Assuredly Mr. Donahue agrees that they are tacky?'”
That’s part of the purpose behind the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Matters of doctrine, not of behavior, last I checked.
August 18, 2008 at 9:56 pm
bitchphd
Hey! I’m a Catholic! And I’ve denounced Bill Donohue more than once! And I’m *also* a Recognized Media Figure (apparently)!
I.e., not chopped liver. Nor a potted plant. AHEM.
(Also, thanks, Dana!)
August 18, 2008 at 10:00 pm
dana
You are a great recognized media figure. I hope on the one hand it goes bigger, mostly because I want to see Donahue defend the Balloon Animal Jesus as Sacraments on TV, but on the other hand, I hope this dies down relatively quickly for you.
Also, I think you should make balloon animals at the convention.
August 18, 2008 at 10:02 pm
bitchphd
Oh man, how awesome?
I wonder if I can get a tshirt made that says “Denounced by the Catholic League” on it….
August 18, 2008 at 10:03 pm
ari
I think she should wear an elaborate balloon animal hat, depicting Obama as Jesus and McCain as…some really old guy.
August 18, 2008 at 10:03 pm
dana
That would rule. “Desecrating Poppable Idols Since 2008.”
August 18, 2008 at 10:24 pm
bitchphd
If I can get a balloon animal hat, you totally know I’m going to wear it.
August 18, 2008 at 10:25 pm
ari
I know a guy.
And for the McCain one, it could just be kind of deflated.
August 18, 2008 at 10:30 pm
bitchphd
what I really want, of course, is a balloon animal of me peeing on bill donohue, but that’s probably a little difficult to render in balloons.
August 18, 2008 at 10:35 pm
ari
I said, I know a guy. We’ll talk.
August 18, 2008 at 10:38 pm
bitchphd
Okeydoke.
Btw, I heart my new students.
August 18, 2008 at 10:39 pm
bitchphd
(And with that, I’m going back to bed. For once I’d gotten an early night, but then Mr. B. told me about this Donohue thing. Darn Donohue, he couldn’t have picked a better week?)
August 19, 2008 at 12:18 am
urbino
Given this:
I’m not sure that he is, but grant that: I think it’s surely in part that the guy has made his career out of freaking out over nothing, and the media loves to cover shitstorms. His money is entirely from lay donations. No one else is freaking out about what he freaks out about, so what is there to say? Who is the media going to interview?
it’s clear we basically agree, since I said the same thing upthread. Where we disagree, which is fine with me, is that I don’t think it would be a big deal for the appropriate member of the RCC to come out and say, “Hey, everybody please remember this cracker doesn’t speak for anybody but his donors, and truth be told, we’re not exactly holding him up as a model of a Catholic life well lived.”
August 19, 2008 at 11:29 am
Catholic League President Bill Donohue urges Democratic Convention to nix invatations to bloggers Bitch PhD and Towleroad | Popehat
[…] Donohue is upset that Ms. Ph.D. has written disapprovingly of twisty balloon Jesuses (which as Edge of the West points out is rather ironic in light of Donohue’s past tantrums against milk chocolate […]
August 19, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Top Posts « WordPress.com
[…] I’m just saying, Christ used to whip your kind and throw you out of the Temple. I know Bill Donahue does not speak for all Catholics. But I kinda wish the rest of us could come up with a way to sit […] […]
August 19, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Adam A
Mike,
I just want to point out that denying Eucharist is ever so close to excommunication. Excommunication is the denial of access to sacraments. The Eucharist is the central act of Catholicism, and by far the most important sacrament – it’s only one of two that you can even do on a regular basis. That’s why so many progressive Catholics got pissed off by the threat of denying Communion to Kerry – it’s a de facto excommunication. In theory, believing that abortion should remain legal is not a bigger transgression then wanting to systematically dismantle socially just programs, but you never see bishops bring out the big guns against Republicans who oppose the social justice teachings of the church.
All that being said, denouncing bd is hardly the provenance of the Pope – bd’s a jerk and blowhard, not a heretic. You can be certain that there are many priests who denounce such blowhardery locally to their parishes.
There are a lot of right-wing groups in the Church that really appreciate Donohue. Equally so, there are a lot of left-wing groups that really hate him. Despite the hierarchy, the Church isn’t monolithic.
August 20, 2008 at 7:34 am
Vance Maverick
This appears to have fizzled. Nobody is reporting on it save a few gay and/or liberal sites. A gruesome elder-neglect murder case in which one William Donohue is a defendant (“Expert: maggots confirm neglect”) was briefly pushed down in the search results by this mishegas, but it’s started to reassert itself.
October 30, 2008 at 8:13 am
You poked the camel in the eye with that needle. « The Edge of the American West
[…] that which doth irk | by dana Man, and here I had thought at the time that the title of my earlier post was over the top, but apparently I was just a couple months early. I would advice these gentle folk […]