William Donohue of the Catholic League does not like some of the people who endorse Obama. Some of the religious people, that is. In a recent press release entitled “Look Who’s Supporting Obama”, Donohue claims Obama’s website lists testimonials of “three controversial clergymen” including a Chicago-area Catholic priest. Among the accusations are that these clergymen condemned zionism, and blamed 9/11 on American foreign policy, received an award from the Nation of Islam, befriended Louis Farrakhan, and demonstrated against a gun store.
Now, if Donohue has complained about the unseemly nature of member of the clergy aligning themselves with partisan political campaigns, he has a point. I can’t speak for the protestants, but no Catholic priest should do such a thing. But this is not Donohue’s point. He appears to have no problem with Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests for Life endorsing Sam Brownback. And on the protestant side, he never complains about the fact that the Falwells and the Dobsons have done their level best to align Christianity with the Republican party.
And let’s look at some of the allegations, such as “blaming 9/11 on American foreign policy.” Only the hyper-nationalist and perpetually self-deluded refuse to admit that American foreign policy has no hand whatsoever in promoting a terrorist backlash. And what Catholic principles are at stake here with such an accusation anyway? None, unless you believe in the fusing of Christianity and nationalism, a topic getting a lot of attention around Vox Nova these days. And anyway, what of the religious leaders who explicitly blamed Americans for causing 9/11– Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. Where was Donohue then?
The Catholic League purports to “safeguard both the religious freedom rights and the free speech rights of Catholics whenever and wherever they are threatened”. And what does this attack on Obama have to do with that? No, as I’ve pointed out many times, Donohue’s most fundamental allegiance is to the Republican party. He is a partisan, and uses faith as a partisan cudgel. He adores religiosity in Republicans and abhors it in Democrats. This was most obvious with his differential treatment of Bush and Kerry when it came to religion in 2004 (and I’m not talking about his wholly legitimate criticism of Kerry’s stance on abortion). With Bush, Donohue says things like “Is Bush too Holy to be President?” and “most Americans appreciate and admire President George W. Bush for his strong religious convictions”. Kerry, on the other hand, is “playing politics with his religion”, which, anyway, is an “enigma” to him. He even felt the need to list friends of Kerry’s who claim he is not religious!
Donohue’s present beef is with Obama’s religious outreach endeavors. This too, has been an obsession with Donohue. He used to attack Democrats for not engaging in religious outreach. Yet when they do, he attacks them! Let’s jump back to 2004 again. Of Kerry’s two advisers, Donohue claimed that the resume of one was “that of a person looking for a job working for Fidel Castro”, while the other was lambasted for opposing “under God” in the pledge of allegiance. Yes, core Catholics beliefs under attack! Of course, Bush’s religious outreach people were held to a different standard. When his Catholic liaison was accused of inappropriate sexual behavior with his 18-year old student some years back, Donohue went on the attack and proceeded to blame the victim, decrying the allegations of a “drunken female he met in a bar.” Even for Donohue, that’s low.
I think there actually is need for an organization like the Catholic League. Anti-Catholic prejudice in America is alive and kicking. But we don’t need an attempt to align the Church with a partisan position. We deserve better.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In