Shoutin’ Bill Donohue Circles the Wagons

Shoutin’ Bill Donohue Circles the Wagons May 3, 2013

Turns out that when somebody gets upset because a priest with a legal agreement to never be around minors is allowed to be around minors, that’s not because they care about the safety of minors.  It’s because they are sinister lefties who want “to bring down a bishop–any bishop”.

Kevin O’Brien opens a can of whupass on this nonsense. Rebecca Hamilton then delivers some well-deserved kicks to the corpse of this nonsense as she describes the bishop’s action to a T: straining at legal technicality gnats and swallowing the camel of child sexual abuse.

Donohue’s behavior here is Exhibit #349873987 in what I call the Faithful Conservative Catholic Anti-Charism of Discernment.  With a sort of preternatural persistence, a huge percentage of the Faithful Conservative Catholic subculture seems to batten on the wrong side in controversy after controversy–Maciel, Euteneuer, Corapi, siding with Michael Voris when he suggests good bishop Mulvey is part of a shadowy gay conspiracy to destroy Corapi, attacking the bishops of Medjugorje, laboring for years to defend torture and war crimes, comparing Randian corporate stooge (and now gay adoption supporter) Paul Ryan to St. Thomas Aquinas(!) and denouncing all who would not vote for pro-abort Romney as enemies of the Faith, defending the shocking behavior of Bp. Finn and now this.  And they do so with the cocksure certitude that they are “defending the Church from enemies”.  And more often than not, it’s massively wrong, not just a boo boo. And massively wrong in a way anybody of common sense could see. And when the hero of the Faithful Conservative Catholic is shown to be massively wrong, the Faithful Conservative Catholic learns nothing and remembers nothing and the next time he manages to side with the wrong side again and blame it all on shadowy forces trying to destroy the Church and never take responsibility for all the other times he was massively wrong.

The amazing thing is that, typically, the people sounding the alarms are, themselves, conservative Catholics like Kevin and Rebecca.  They speak because they love the Church.  And for gratitude, they get told they “aren’t really Catholic” by excommunicating Inquisitors with a sort of anti-charism of massive wrongness who can’t seem to hear themselves.

Fool me once, shame on me.  Fool me over and over and over, and it’s time to do a system diagnostic on the subculture of Faithful Conservative Catholics[TM]. 

"It might be immoral to take another's life, but it's also immoral to not preserve ..."

Reader DoughnutGuy Gets It
"I shared the discussion with my heathen/heretic friends, so they dropped by to show their ..."

Reader DoughnutGuy Gets It

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Barfly_Kokhba

    While Catholic factionalists are lining up to tear each other to shreds, I will merely point out that Father Fugee’s case represents yet another profound failure on the part of the secular US “justice” system, the same system to which the Church was supposed to recourse when these crimes were first being publicly discovered.

    In the bad old days, a few well-dressed gentlemen with black coats and muffled pistols could have put this whole thing to bed much more quietly and effectively. Now I guess we’re all just going to keep talking it out (using that oh-so-rational modern American “liberal vs. conservative” paradigm) while predators like Fugee roam freely, looking for more victims.

    • Imp the Vladaler

      In the bad old days, a few well-dressed gentlemen with black coats and muffled pistols could have put this whole thing to bed much more quietly and effectively.


      • Barfly_Kokhba

        Seamless robes and bullwhips, maybe?

    • Andy, Bad Person

      You’re suggesting calling in the Boondock Saints?

      • Barfly_Kokhba

        *taps tip of nose vigorously and silently*

  • Dave G.

    It might be because he’s convinced there can’t be a better reason for them to go after the Bishop. Sort of like a comment in a post below about FOX News. At first there was a kudos sent out to FOX for actually covering the Kermit Gosnell case. But later it was revealed that FOX doesn’t really care about the case at all, but simply wants to throw out some culture war red meat. In this case, it can’t be because they’re concerned about minors, it must be because they’re really out to get the Bishop. Looks like that approach might be more common than we imagine: if we don’t like something, even if it appears to do the right thing, we make sure it’s not really right after all.

    • jaybird1951

      “But later it was revealed that FOX doesn’t really care about the case at
      all, but simply wants to throw out some culture war red meat.” Cite your proof please. I watch Fox News and they have covered the Gosnell trial well. No sign that they don’t care about the case as you assert.

  • Mark S. (not for Shea)

    Bill Donohue is an embarrassment to the Faith. Perhaps we should send him a T-shirt that reads: “Because of you the name of God is reviled among the Gentiles.”

  • kenofken

    Someone should tell Donohue he doesn’t need to excuse child abuse anymore. NAMBLA has it covered (though he’s arguably selling their brand better than they ever did).

    • jaybird1951

      “Someone should tell Donohue he doesn’t need to excuse child abuse anymore.” :To the best of my knowledge Donohue has never excused child abuse. You however, appear to have abused the virtue of charity.

      • Newp Ort

        I can’t post links from my phone, but Google “bill Donohue homosexual crisis” and get back to us.

        Donohue said the problem isn’t sexual abuse but consensual gay sex between priests and abuse victims. It’s all the homos, you see.

        Donohue literally said on Larry King Live “It’s not pedophilia, because most of the victims are post pubescent.”

        Donohue is scum.

        • Wait, I’m not defending Bill Donohue at all, but I thought that was true. I thought most of the victims were post-pubescent. It doesn’t make it okay, of course, but just that it’s a different kind of evil from straight-up pedophilia. Wasn’t that the point he was making?

          • Doug Sirman

            The fairy-tale land, wishful-thinking narrative most often repeated by orthodox Catholics was that it wasn’t really pedophilia because many of the victims were 11 years of age or older. Apparently, according to these geniuses, puberty is a stage of development that is completed in roughly the space of an afternoon. See, although there’s nothing actually written down, according to many idiots who participate in the relevant radio/EWTN/NCR/ave maria radio bubble of invincible willingness to believe only that which confirms their idolatrous biases, (and anywhere that bloated, braying, lying publicity-whore, Bill “they’re a bunch of gold-diggers” Donahue can find a willing audience), the presence of any secondary sexual characteristics defines consent.

            It’s all made up lies by those anti-catholics, y’see. Anyone who ever came into contact with a priest’s dick, wanted it. Indeed, according to another publicity-whore by the name of Groeschel, the poor priest was often the true victim.

            • Once again, I have no brief for Bill Donahue, but I move in fairly conservative circles and – aside from that remark by Groeschel, which everyone thought was shocking – I have never heard any argument that the priests were the victims because the ones they molested were “asking for it.”

              Rather, I was under the impression that people were accusing society of essentially aiding and abetting the abusers because it falsely pretended, post hoc, that these priests were suffering from what is a manifestly (to all) distorted attraction to pre-pubescents, when in fact what these priests were dealing with was garden-variety homosexuality.

              Therefore, what people were angry about was the refusal of society to acknowledge that these men’s homosexuality was itself a sign of a distorted and unhealthy sexuality and therefore should have provided warning and a reason to give them special counseling and help. Rather, that society (expressed through unwise seminary psychologists and clueless bishops) treated these men exactly the same as heterosexual men with fairly straightforward sexual desires and impulses, gave them no help to deal with their situation and, in so doing, hung them, their victims, and ultimately the church out to dry.

              Now, I’m not entirely confident in that line of thinking, but I’ve never heard a refutation of it.

              • kenofken

                So instead of excusing pedophilia overtly, we have a set of arguments that resorts to homophobia, total abdication of pastoral responsibility and ordinary human decency and the greatest plea for moral relativism ever constructed by the human race?

                I don’t know how I could ever have misjudged Donohue or the rest of the wagon-circlers or questioned their moral reasoning….

                • You don’t have to excuse the wicked bishops and abusing priests (whose crimes are inexcusable) to find fault with a twisted sexual culture that didn’t give these men the help they needed.

                  These are not at all mutually exclusive causes. I entirely agree with you that the good ol’ boy network and clericalistic culture of the church is absolutely to blame for this disgusting series of crimes. But that’s not to say there are no other sources of blame. If Donahue is saying, “A therefore not B,” well … that’s why all of us on this blog find him pretty distasteful.

                  Also, nobody’s argued for moral relativism. You have good points. Don’t distract from them with irrational emoting.

          • Newp Ort

            Thanks for the reply!

            What Donohue said is (possibly) not false, but when you read the context and see the videos of him, it is quite obvious he’s trying to minimize the harm that was done and shift blame.

            What he clearly intended to imply was that the abuse wasn’t so bad, cuz y’know, these are not little kids, they’re practically adults! They knew what they were doing. Plus gays.

            Combine all that with his defense of Groeschel (the youths mighta tempted the priests guy) and Bishop Robert Finn (failed to report priest in his diocese with computer fulla child porn), it’s obvious all he wants to do is find anyone to blame other than the church for the abuse scandal.

            Sometimes he seems just delusional. From his letter defending Bp Finn (who failed to report Fr Ratigan’s child porn stash):

            “Nor did this case involve child pornography [!!!!!!]. Here’s what happened.

            On December 16, 2010, a computer technician found crotch-shot pictures of children, fully clothed, on Ratigan’s computer; there was one that showed a girl’s genitals exposed.”

  • David

    Interesting that now that we have somewhat of a resolution to the matter that those who immediately, without any evidence to support their claims, jumped on Myers and declared him guilty of letting Fugee interact with minors, “return to youth ministry”, etc., are silent and certainly not issuing any apologies or admitting that they may have rashly judged and such. Some bloggers have even hidden/quickly archived or erased their posts in this regard.

    Fugee has admitted he did violate the agreement but that Myers/the Archdiocese did not know of this or allow it, sanction it, etc; while Myers is clearly indicating that neither he nor any diocesan officials did so. And until/unless there is evidence to the contrary we have to believe them and not assume they are lying, making excuses, etc. And to claim that Myers still “indirectly” allowed this by having Fugee remain in ministry is a stretch. Of course, if Fugee had been dismissed and then committed something, then the criticism would be that Myers just cut him loose and failed to keep tabs on him…We have to be cautious about both extremes: dismissing any criticisms and immediately condemning Bishops or whomever, at the first cite of something. The pendelum is now generally at the latter extreme.

  • jay

    Why has the ever politically connected Bill Donohue not mentioned Kermit Gosnell once in any of his “official”releases??? Could it be he would have to praise DA Seth Willilams for his actions – After all, he really has more fun attacking the Catholic Democratic DA for Priest Abuse trials,,,,,- Then there’s todays ‘ – ME,TOO, ME TOO Politically connect article saying he was targeted in 2008,,,that would be under whose administration ,,,,,by the IRS. ”

    As a Catholic embarrassed at the politically connected activities of Bill Donohune, I can think of no other organization who uses our Catholic Church for their political gain more than the never to be outdone Fox News Friend – Bill Donohue.