Resistance to efforts of the Catholic church laity (I think the League is laity, right?) to set public law has indeed seen an uptick in the last 50 years. I think that’s as much as the non-religious mindset is going to concede right now on that point.
The League goes back to defense against the Know Nothings an hundred seventy years ago. That shit was much worse than making rude jokes about a very rude man.
Um… that’s very much someone’s personal opinion, not a fact.
While I don’t doubt that many Catholics do receive more than their fair share of hate from certain sects, I can’t equate that with the ongoing persecution of POC, Trans-folks, Muslims, and various other marginalized groups; not when the Catholic church as an institution wields so much political power.
That said, I’m bowing out of this conversation now, as the whole discussion makes me highly uncomfortable.
I recognize that everyone here deserves respect and that we have to share the safety of the space that we created.
Sadly, vehement conversations of religion and politics all too often bring out the worst in people, even those of us who hold similar core values.
Disclaimer: While I was raised Catholic, I lapsed in attendence to services about fifteen years ago, and, as of about a decade ago, no longer consider myself one at all (I cannot reconcile the Catholic ideal of a God who sentences people – anyone – to eternal torture with a God whom I am willing to worship).
I don’t think that anyone here takes issue with that aspect of the Catholic League. They might roll their eyes when they do something like boycott Dogma for being insulting to Catholics, but few people are going to take issue with an organization whose goal is simply to defend a group against discrimination.
The Catholic League doesn’t just do that; it advocates for a very conservative version of Christianity, and lobbies Congress for it. It publishes articles to the effect of, “The Pope is wrong for condemning Trump because he promised he wouldn’t be separating families” but, when Trump breaks that promise, the League remains steadfastly silent.
But do the Catholic laity even have a way to alter Catholic League stances? From what I can see, it looks like the Catholic League’s stances are Bill Donohue’s stances, so I don’t see how they’re representing you and not just him (and those Catholics who agree with him).
I would expect so. I mean, if you choose to remain part of an organization (especially when the relationship is not that of an employee), you’re tacitly saying that you approve of the leadership. I would expect anyone who didn’t approve of the job that the person in charge of an organization is doing to either push for a change of leadership, or to pack their bags and leave.
And that’s where I think you and I are going to have to part ways on this. I have a lot of respect for Catholics as people, less for the priesthood, much less for the Vatican (except Pope Francis, who exceeds the expectations set by JP-II and B-XVI). I’m not going to lay the sins of the Church on the laity, because they were largely born and indoctrinated into the Church, and their religion is part of their identity.
But people aren’t born into the Catholic League. That’s a choice, just like joining the Republican Party would be. And, just as I believe that any Republican not actively working to remove Donald Trump as the leader of the party should be tarred with the same brush as Trump himself, I think the same goes for the CL and Donohue.
Insulting a group that someone can freely choose to join or leave isn’t bigotry, especially when that group’s actions demand criticism.
If someone aimed an arrow at Donohue and his pro-death-penalty, anti-welfare, pro-Trump, anti-choice partisans, and you feel like that arrow unfairly hit you as well… maybe you should reconsider who you’re standing with.
Are you referring to a general anti-religious atmosphere, a more narrowly-targeted anti-Christian atmosphere, or a laser-guided anti-Catholic atmosphere specifically?
I’ve seen some of the first and second. I haven’t noticed the third. That is, I’ve seen a lot of justified criticism of the Church itself (and especially its handling of the sexual abuse scandal), and of the Pope’s support of some of the Church’s patriarchal views (anti-LGBT, anti-abortion, anti-ordination for women), but I don’t remember seeing anything that targeted lay Catholics as a group. Do you mind elaborating?
If you know of a Catholic equivalent of Fred Clark, whose Slacktivist blog is excellent proof that there is an ethical, non-hateful contingent in Evangelical Christianity, I would be happy to read it.
Much of the anti-Catholic sentiment in the U.S. these days is BECAUSE OF organizations like the Catholic League. A counter example, which most non-Catholics probably have never heard of, is the Catholic Workers. If you told me you were involved with that group, it would raise my respect for you.
It’s what people use their faith FOR that is the proof of the pudding. Service to others, or overriding secular laws to force others to bend to their beliefs? People don’t generally ‘bash’ the Amish, for example, because the Amish don’t force their way of doing things on everyone else. That’s what’s being bashed, not the religion itself.
My own disclaimer: This rather mirrors my own experience, though the timelines are different.
Should he be, though? I mean, I’ve gone through the whole anti-Catholic thing growing up, including having members of other Christian sects telling me I (as a Catholic) am not even Christian, and still…it feels like there’s a reactionary element there which is far beyond what’s reasonable, attacking segments of the population who are pretty unobjectionable except as a “we hate these people too” kind of thing.
There’s Melinda Selmys, but she’s currently lapsed.
I have to use a lot of user css to defeat site animations: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/catholicauthenticity/
Bill Donahue has consistently downplayed the very serious problem of sexual abuse in the church (even in Ireland, where abuse led to the death of children in the orphanage system). He’s also protested art and culture, often made by catholics, that brought these and other issues to light. I don’t think he’s there to protect the laity, I think he’s there to protect the hierarchy that has become part of the problem. Do I think he represents all catholics. No. I don’t. Do I think he’s part of the problem? Yes. Especially when he blames gay men for abusing children, when it’s most assuredly NOT the case.
I’m not anti-catholic by any stretch, but no organization should be above criticism when it comes to abuse of children. When the church covered up these scandals, the people who got hurt were catholics! And I don’t mean in some abstract way, either. Moving priests who abused children to different parishes isn’t going to make that person stop being a predator.
And I don’t think the catholic league, by helping the church establishment to downplay or cover up crimes helps in that matter.
I don’t think I should respect an organization that helps to cover up crimes against children or that blames the wrong people for that. He’s not the catholic church, though, nor does he represent catholics, either. Defending abuse and blaming gay men for it isn’t a civil rights struggle.
[ETA]
I wanted to add some voices on how problematic Donahue has been, including catholic voices. I’m not out to do a “hit job” on catholics, because catholics aren’t the problem here - authoritarian, anti-democratic leadership that always defers to authority, even when it’s destructive, violent, and cruel is the problem.
Again, covering up abuse does nothing to help catholics.
The Catholic League also has a twitter account for anyone who wants to see what they stand for. Scrolling back through July, I find some defense of the right of confession and things like that. But there is also:
This is not anything like a neutral religious organization, and nobody should be asked to pretend otherwise.
So to me this seems painfully simple. It’s not right to expect respect for an organization if it refuses to treat others in kind. If you know it acts like a dick to other people, then you should accept that they may well be less than complimentary to its supporters. Because even if supporters have their reasons to put up with it, that’s the just desserts for supporting someone acting like a dick.
Likewise defending against bias is one thing, but doing so at the expense of other people is another. Yes, the Catholic League is supposed to stand up against anti-Catholicism. It’s also run by someone who does things like scapegoat gays for church sex scandals and denounces people who dare criticize Trump’s America. You may find the trade-off is worth it, but that’s a purely strategic calculation, and nobody else is obliged to forgive who is getting thrown under the bus.
Personal beliefs and interpersonal actions are not the same thing. Yes, there’s a good deal of real anti-Catholic bias out there. But as chgoliz says, I doubt it’s helped by equating respect for Catholics with respect for groups that work against other people. Not the same at all.
Thanks! It’s even on Patheos, which houses quite a few religious-based blogs that I read regularly.
Here’s Slacktivist talking about Donohue quite a few years ago now, specifically referencing the fact that the Catholic Diocese of Wilmington for one doesn’t think the Catholic League represents them at all:
It’s an outside organization, not part of the Catholic Church.
Right? I’ve seen it literally in my own life, in my own family.
And another thing about Donahue - he aligns with the protestant/evangelical right over a variety of issues where they converge - abortion, anti-LBGQT+, etc. But if the christian dominionists get their way, they will most assuredly turn on catholics in a hurry. Once they are done with ethnically cleansing the land of people of color and Jews, they will come for catholics next, make no bones about it. They are basically promoting a KKK world view, and the KKK was not shy about attacking and even lynching catholics. They are a much bigger threat to catholic civil rights than secular authorities arresting priests who break the law and abuse catholic children.
I mean, I have to imagine the single biggest threat to American Catholics today comes from people who migrated from majority-Catholic countries losing their rights. People born here getting detained with no legal recourse. Thousands of people who are desperately looking for a safe home having their children taken away and left to sicken and die in cages with conditions that you wouldn’t be allowed to keep stray cats in.
Frankly, save only existential crises like climate change, this is practially all any human rights organization should be screaming about. And yet when Pelosi speaks out against it, as a Catholic even, this ostensibly pro-Catholic organization has the disgusting audacity to slam her for it? That is pro-authoritarian, plain and simple. When the two come into conflict, the League has shown which they actually stand for.
Honestly, I am very angry about this, and feel like I have been much too gentle above. At this point anyone who supports the League is either ignorant of what they are, or should take a long, hard look at their values. Referring to them as dildos is not only mild, not only earned, it’s a level of insult anyone who supports them must be fine with for other people, because for them that kind of blanket denunciation is a normal Tuesday night. That we should now be debating whether it was ok for you to say, as if an authoritarian mouthpiece might be entitled to respect even as they deny it to everyone else, is unreasonable and I think you are owed a serious apology.
“Some people’s idea of [free speech] is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone says anyone back, that is an outrage.” - Winston Churchill
I should stop there, probably much before there, but I wanted to say that much. I’m not happy with anti-Catholic sentiment either, but that’s not what any of this is at all. Friggin’ motes and beams, people.
that is something that the current Pope has discussed. The head of the catholic league has decided that it’s not a priority…
Excellent points, for an opossum. 
Things seemed to be going well yesterday, generally speaking. It is understandable that some users would be nervous about a perceived influx of new, unknown users. Not everyone wants a pop-up masquerade busting into the living room, no matter how charming the Space Lizards turn out to be, nor how well-regulated their cloacal function. But it looked to me like @tinoesroho had set up a decent compromise situation that allows us Badass reg’lars to have our goofball fun, without cracking the crockery and staining the doilies of the more dignified (but regrettably less Badass) contingent hereabouts.
Whaddaya say, can we undo the patently ridiculous and downright Jasonian thousand-year bans, and start this week over?
I want to leave it here even though it got away from the rules because I do think that the conversation adds a lot to thoughts about how we treat members who are in organizations of any sorts, and how do we talk about those issues appropriately online.
Until someone willfully decided to misuse their sock puppets and violate the atmosphere of trust and camaraderie we’ve built here, a willful and intentional malicious act.
I say put it to a vote, and my vote is an emphatic FUCK NO.
What happened yesterday and the nasty-ass vibe that’s going on over multiple websites is NOT okay, it’s not harmless and it should not be marginalized or tolerated.
I don’t know if you’ve been following the hijinks going on in the gaming threads, but this just landed the wrong way with all the weird posts happening from sock puppets. I will restore it now that we have figured out what is going on.
