The Media’s Favorite Catholic Culture Warrior

by John Gehring 10-23-2009

Just in time for Halloween, Bill Donohue of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights is once again spooked about all those “radical secularists” lurking ominously behind ever corner. In case you didn’t notice, these godless heathens are “waging war” against American culture and plotting to “smash the last vestiges of Christianity in America.” So argues the irrepressible cultural warrior in a recent On Faith commentary and in his new book, Secular Sabotage: How Liberals Are Destroying Religion and Culture in America.

You have to hand it to the guy. Donohue makes righteous indignation and throwing rhetorical bombs into an art form. He is about as subtle as a fist in your face. His latest depiction of cultural doom probably elicits a yawn from most religious Americans who are not obsessed with the bogeymen of multiculturalism, secularism, homosexuality, and Hollywood hedonism that Donohue rails against.

Keeping track of Donohue’s latest offensive comment keeps the watchdogs at Media Matters for America busy. Here’s a few of his signature gems:

“Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular … Hollywood likes anal sex.” MSNBC, Scarborough Country, 12/8/04
“A lot of these people are gold diggers looking to get money from the Catholic Church.” – Speaking about the clergy sex abuse scandal. The Last Word with Matt Cooper 5/29/2009

At least when he gets to feeling down about things, Donohue raises his chin and cheers himself up with this comforting thought:

The culture war is up for grabs. The good news is that religious conservatives continue to breed like rabbits, while secular saboteurs have shut down: they’re too busy walking their dogs, going to bathhouses and aborting their kids. Time, it seems, is on the side of the angels. On Faith, Washington Post, 10/19/09

It’s sad, if unsurprising, that the media regularly turn to Donohue for a “Catholic view” on issues. While Donohue’s bluster makes for sensational television, he rarely raises his voice to speak about issues at the heart of Catholic social teaching. While the U.S. Catholic bishops’ 2008 election-year statement on political responsibility emphasized a consistent ethic of life tradition that recognizes torture, unjust war, the death penalty, genocide, racism, and poverty as “direct assaults on innocent human life,” Donohue is uncharacteristically mute on these points. Abortion is not the only “life issue” for Catholics. As Auxiliary Bishop Gabino Zavala of Los Angeles told the Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne Jr. last year: “We are not a one-issue Church … but that’s not what always comes out.”

Every day in our churches, mosques, and synagogues, people of faith gather humbly to pray for wisdom, compassion, and justice. We give public expression to this faith by comforting the sick, welcoming the strangers among us and seeking peace in a world torn by violence. We lobby Congress to pass health-care reform, fix a broken immigration system, and address global climate change as profound moral issues. Even on difficult issues, we reject culture-war showdowns by encouraging pro-choice and pro-life elected officials to find common ground and reduce abortions by increasing support for pregnant women, expanding adoption opportunities and preventing unintended pregnancies.

But we live in an age where the shrillest voices often drown out sober debate and thoughtful insights. Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh watch their ratings soar with every outrageous remark. Bill Donohue gets invited on TV because he bellows and bloviates with the best of them. While some enjoy the antics, most of us are tired of the noise machine. Faith and reason are not enemies, but together help illuminate our path through the dark forests of fear, ignorance, and injustice. Sometimes we just need to turn down the volume and tune out the shouters to find our way.

John Gehring is the Media Director and Senior Writer for Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good.

Categories: Abortion, Faith and Politics

jesse3

"most religious Americans who are not obsessed with the bogeymen of multiculturalism, secularism, homosexuality, and Hollywood hedonism that Donohue rails against."
--Do you really think most Christians are not alarmed by the values Hollywood promotes in tv and movies? Do you think Hollywood's depiction of sex, in particular, should not be troublesome to Christians?

There is an easy solution to Donohue...how bout left-leaning Christians start speaking out against the same issues that are troubling to most Christians and should be troubling to all Christians.

Titans1

I agree with you jesse. Is there not enough hatred and prejudice thrown at Catholics with out John doing it here . I don't get it . John used Media Matters as an example of fair reporting ? Yikes .
Many sincere Christians of the leftward persuasion know full and well the nastiness that comes from the secular media when they are not in line with their view points. Donohue gives a good perspective of many Catholics In
our nation , perhaps that is frightening to John . Maybe jealous ? But one thing John you sure sound angry.

BlueDeacon

Well, to be fair, Media Matters does keep transcripts on file. When someone from the right says, "No, I never said that," MM can pull out something that says, "Yes, you did."

That said, I honestly don't believe that Donohue speaks for most Catholics. He may speak for some ideologically conservative American priests and bishops who has tasted political power, which is another matter. I think it's telling that Pope Benedict actually hailed Obama's election (but not for ideological reasons).

Chris "Jesdisciple"

ideologically conservative American priests and bishops who has tasted political power
Power breeds bias, but I resent your implication that all conservatives are biased (more than liberals). Any ideology can be used to gain power by those who believe it.

However, as I mentioned in my previous post (see my profile), many conservatives have lost their habit of questioning. This makes them easy targets for tyrants. But it still doesn't follow that all conservative leaders are tyrants.

BlueDeacon

Power breeds bias, but I resent your implication that all conservatives are biased (more than liberals). Any ideology can be used to gain power by those who believe it.

It depends on where you get your information -- and the political right over the years built an institution that disseminates propaganda to dwarf anything that the "liberals," including the MSM, can come up with.

Guest

"Well, to be fair, Media Matters does keep transcripts on file. "

So did the KGB , but that is besides the point.

scat

Yesm comparing Media Matters to the KGB is besides the point, and most everyone knows it. Trying to impune a person or organization by demonizing the practice of keeping accurate records is just plain silly.

WaveTossed

"There is an easy solution to Donohue...how bout left-leaning Christians start speaking out against the same issues that are troubling to most Christians and should be troubling to all Christians."

Really? You mean speak out about war, poverty, discrimination, exploitation, and abuse? Many what you term as "left-leaning" Christians speak out on these subjects and sometimes have laid their lives down for such issues. One who did so was our Savior, who was crucified over His concern about injustice to the oppressed.

Minnesotan

WaveTossed - your response demonstrates the very mindset that prevents effective dialogue between the conservative Christians and the liberal Christians. You are implying that Jesus would only be concerned with issues like war, poverty, etc., and that being concerned with other issues is wrong or misguided. You are implying that Jesus would not be concerned with no-fault divorce or a proper definition of marriage, yet He talked about exactly that in Matthew 19:1-5. Those are not issues Sojourners addresses, yet Jesus did. Fighting poverty in the inner city means addressing racism AND the distressing social practice of the people who live there of having children outside of marriage. I would like to see ALL Biblical issues addressed. I think the Progressive Christians communicate ineffectively when they say that Jesus would not be concerned about legalized abortion, a proper definition of marriage, rampant sexuality in the public media, increased secularization and censorship of Christians in the public square, etc. I think it is proper to argue that those Christians should have an expanded agenda to help the poor, but you lose me and many others when you claim abortion, etc., are issues Jesus would not be concerned about, and therefore, we should not be, either. WaveTossed, I really pray that you and other Progressive Christians would understand this, because if you did, I think there could be more uniting on more issues.

WaveTossed

"WaveTossed - your response demonstrates the very mindset that prevents effective dialogue between the conservative Christians and the liberal Christians. You are implying that Jesus would only be concerned with issues like war, poverty, etc., and that being concerned with other issues is wrong or misguided."

Let me ask you the same question that I asked Ando: Please show where progressive Christians state that Jesus wasn't concerned about issues such as divorce, rampant sexuality, sexual abuse, sexual objectivization. Please also show me where progressive Christians don't care about issues such as sexually exploitive portrayals shown by Hollywood films, as well as in the real world -- that these issues should be ignored and unattended.

My experience is that Christians who are not part of Donohue's belief system are very concerned with issues of sex, rape, divorce, assault issues.

scat

I don't recall any progressives saying Jesus would not be concerned ab out abortion, marriage, etc. No one said you should not be concerned about abortion, but abortion is not the sole issue.

ando

"--Do you really think most Christians are not alarmed by the values Hollywood promotes in tv and movies? Do you think Hollywood's depiction of sex, in particular, should not be troublesome to Christians?"

Yes, and that's why people from Limbaugh and Beck to the Religious Right have been so attractive, because they're filling the void that the "progressive" Christians leave unattended. They're big issues for the "hicks" from the heartland. I remember my mother, a devoted Catholic from a rural Midwest town, telling me that she could never vote for someone like Kerry in 2004. And that's where the Democrats will run into trouble, because they could run the risk of losing the Blue Dogs and/or an even more significant number of rural voters as the Dems keep trending toward the more urbane, sophisticated vote.

It's so funny how the left portrays itself as being tolerant and open-minded. As Chesterton noted (paraphrasing): tolerance is just a word for those who are incapable of loving another person. Watch out, Mr. Gehring, your words might come back to bite you in the behind/

WaveTossed

"Yes, and that's why people from Limbaugh and Beck to the Religious Right have been so attractive, because they're filling the void that the 'progressive' Christians leave unattended."

Please do me a favor. Please show where (what you term as) progressive Christians state where issues such as divorce, rampant sexuality, sexual abuse, sexual objectivization -- including those portrayals shown by Hollywood films, as well as in the real world -- should be ignored and unattended.

My experience is that Christians who are not part of Donohue's belief system are very concerned with issues of sex, rape, divorce, assault issues.

Chris "Jesdisciple"

Gotta admit, I haven't seen any of that on here...

Guest

"My experience is that Christians who are not part of Donohue's belief system are very concerned with issues of sex, rape, divorce, assault issues."

I would disagree . Say for chance the poverty associated with single parents . When addressed it use to be made to appear the Christian was degrading people in the secularist press. . Never meant to be , any honest person in their heart knew what even silly Dan Quall mant with Murphy Brown .

Now its not fun to mock the need for moms and dads sticking together anymore , even whites are effected .
I guess that makes secularists get involved . When the majority and problems were in minoritys it was ok by the left to even assign racism with speaking about single parents. Now the whole culture is involved . Not so many folks promoting their self righteous indignation any more . Kids need a mom and a dad . It was never brain science . Its not against gays but I have seen many take it that way. A gay dad is a better dad then a step dad . I believe the Bibical view supports that also , the Christ View is kids need their mom and dad.

BlueDeacon

That's not always the problem with divorce. The real problem, which I know about from personal experience, is that men and women are not taught how to relate to each other on a healthy basis and often don't know what a healthy partner looks like. And a lot of that has to do with the post-World War II breakdown of community for the sake of affluence and status, which the "family values" folks won't touch because it calls their own goals and status into question. Interestingly enough, many of those same folks pooh-pooh the concept of "it takes a village."

Guest

And a lot of that has to do with the post-World War II breakdown of community for the sake of affluence and status,

I don't think the failure to communicate is anything new , but your understanding of the break down of married partners indeed makes sense. The pooh pooh of the village I believe was more against the messenger then the message .

Strong communities are built by people with strong relationships I believe. Hillary Clinton is a lighting rod for some to gather by the river, and the poster child of everything wrong with the concept of government becoming part of your life without first being asked first.

Relationships have a funny way of being mutual desired for them to be healthy.

BlueDeacon

I don't think the failure to communicate is anything new, but your understanding of the break down of married partners indeed makes sense. The pooh pooh of the village I believe was more against the messenger then the message.

No, it has to do with American's "rugged individualism," found even in religion, that is found nowhere else in the world. We have such a high divorce rate despite our "faith" because we emphasize "personal relationship with God" often at the expense of the corporate. Our culture is, basically, "tell us what we want to hear and don't make too many demands on us," and that doesn't help matters.

Chris "Jesdisciple"

The problem conservatives have with Hillary's adage is that it seems to devalue the family unit. Of course community can help a child grow, but it takes a family to raise a child. And as Titans pointed out, Hillary's perceived connections with socialism/communism don't help.

Individualism: I agree that we need more sense of corporate character, but individualism is also an important ethos. They must be balanced, but unfortunately I don't know of any theory which accomplishes this. Given a choice between the two extremes, I'll take individualism.

BlueDeacon

The problem conservatives have with Hillary's adage is that it seems to devalue the family unit. Of course community can help a child grow, but it takes a family to raise a child.

Until the 1950s extended family, not the nuclear family, was the cultural norm. Most Christians don't realize this because they're already part of an extended family -- a local church.

nuclearferret

Until the "War on Poverty" the nuclear family was also viable. Now, what's the point? You can get more free stuff from the government if you don't get together, or if you lie about being together.

The local church (or global, for that matter) is a sorry substitute for "family."

BlueDeacon

Actually, the nuclear family was never all that viable, at least on a cultural
level. One of the reasons the nuclear family has been falling apart --
despite all the hoopla -- is because the nuclear family often shunned support.
I'm now beginning to understand the necessity of having older folks (esp.
grandparents) around to serve as advisers.

And Biblically speaking, at least in the early church, the local assembly
essentially BECAME family. In large part that was because many of the
believers had been ostracized from the rest of society, what with the Jews of
that day rejecting the claims of Christ and Roman law being subverted. In
fact, they were first called Christians because no one else knew what to call
them -- they had come from literally every tribe, race and culture of that
day.

kansasmennonite

The individualism is why we can't get anyting done with healthcare. We can't get together as a society to acomplish much for the good of all. How sad!