DONOHUE DOESN’T DOUBT DOLAN DEMANDS DUTIFUL DOCILITY

!!!!

Bill Donohue: Establishment Lapdog

News: US NewsCrisis in the ChurchCommentary

by Christine Niles  •  ChurchMilitant.com  •  November 20, 2015

In a column published Friday, Catholic League’s Bill Donohue goes after ChurchMilitant.com, characterizing this apostolate as a group of “right-wing crazies” writing “hit pieces” against his friend Cdl. Donald Wuerl. According to Donohue, our motive stems from Cdl. Wuerl’s alleged closeness to Pope Francis, and the fact that (in his words) we “hate the pope.”

Anyone familiar with our apostolate knows this charge to be laughable. We have consistently defended the Holy Father against attacks, and have even been condemned by various groups for our steadfast refusal to publicly criticize the Pope. We pray for the Holy Father daily, love him, and have always been faithful to Peter.

Cardinal Wuerl’s Playbook
With his smear, Donohue is in fact working out of Cdl. Wuerl’s playbook, whose modus operandi includes discrediting theological opponents as enemies of the Pope. As we noted here:

After several Synod Fathers expressed concern over possible liberal manipulation at the Synod, Wuerl — instead of addressing the substance of their claims — did what any shrewd politician would do when caught: He impugned his opponents’ integrity.

In an interview with America magazine, Wuerl cunningly mischaracterized fellow bishops thus: “I wonder if some of these people who are speaking … just don’t like this pope. I wonder if that isn’t part of it.”

The comments, predictably, put orthodox prelates on the defensive, who scrambled to publicly deny the charges. “Creating a distraction,” we wrote, “the focus would no longer be on addressing their legitimate concerns but rather on their personal character and trustworthiness. For Cdl. Wuerl, it was mission accomplished.”

Donohue, like his cardinal friend, doesn’t address the substance of our claims, choosing instead the low route of personal vilification, falsely painting us as “angry right-wingers” who “hate the pope.” Perhaps for Donohue, too, it’s mission accomplished — but such cheap shots have no place in intelligent discourse, and are beneath the dignity of Catholics.

But Donohue has a history of making cheap shots, once disparaging the faithful as “piety police” when they expressed shock that Cdl. Timothy Dolan had no problem with an activist gay group marching in the New York St. Patrick’s Day Parade, another time comparing a journalist to a left-wing dictator because the journalist supports the long-established Church practice of denying Communion to manifest public sinners, as mandated by canon law. More on that later.

We privately asked Donohue to retract his false charge. He has failed to do so.

Attack Dog for the Establishment
In his Friday column, Donohue goes on to claim we dissembled when we wrote that the archbishop of Washington, D.C. owns his penthouse. “That is a lie,” Donohue argues. “He owns not a centimeter of his third-floor ‘penthouse.'”

But the facts prove otherwise. As we showed in our report, public property tax records show the building at 2200 California Street, NW in D.C. — the location of Cdl. Wuerl’s residence — is owned by “The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington,” a corporation.  Incorporation records name “Donald Wuerl” as the current “governor” of the corporation, with a controlling interest in the property and the power to direct it and dispose of it as he wills. Cardinal Wuerl, in his capacity as governing board member of the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington corporation, technically owns the property. We stand by our claim.

There is perhaps reason for Donohue’s defensivenes. He sits as head of a non-profit with $35 million in assets, and is personally paid a handsome salary of nearly $500,000 per year, according to latest records, with compensation of $417,500 plus “other compensation” of $57,376. His company describes its mission as working “to safeguard both the religious freedom rights and the free speech rights of Catholics whenever and wherever they are threatened.” Among his outfit’s duties, it seems, is its president’s defense of high-profile prelates when they exhibit questionable behavior.

As we noted in our previous article, Cdl. Wuerl came under fire in 2012 for punishing a priest who attempted to protect the Blessed Sacrament. Father Marcel Guarnizo, a visiting D.C. priest, quietly withheld Holy Communion from an active lesbian Buddhist at Mass, safeguarding the Sacred Host from profanation as well as protecting the communicant from bringing greater judgment on her soul. He acted as any faithful priest should — yet Cdl. Wuerl swiftly brought down the hammer, stripping Fr. Guarnizo of his priestly faculties and banning him from active ministry in his diocese. Wuerl apologized to the lesbian Buddhist while leveling unfounded charges of “intimidation” against the priest (who was never given a chance to defend himself).

Donohue evidently had no problem with any of this, instead jumping to the cardinal’s defense. After journalist George Neumayr wrote a column critical of the affair, rightly condemning Wuerl for exposing the Eucharist to sacrilege, Donohue issued a public statement scolding Neumayr for his “scary” dogmatism and labeling him a “right-wing fanatic.” (That seems to be Donohue’s go-to pejorative when it comes to orthodox Catholics who criticize his high-profile colleagues.) Donohue concluded by saying “Wuerl is a real man” and “I have nothing but respect for him.”

But the D.C. prelate isn’t the only one Donohue has shielded. New York cardinal Timothy Dolan has also benefited from Donohue’s protection. In Donohue’s own words, “Cardinal Dolan has no more rabid supporter than Bill Donohue.” When Dolan invited President Barack Obama to be a keynote speaker at the annual Al Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner in 2012 — a $2,500-a-plate affair at the Waldorf-Astoria organized by the New York archdiocese, where cardinals rub shoulders with well-heeled, pro-abortion Democrats — the faithful were outraged, many thousands signing a petition asking that Dolan follow the example of his predecessor cardinals and rescind the invitation or refuse to attend. After all, not only is Obama the most radically pro-abortion, pro-homosexualist president in the history of the nation, he was, at the time, locked in a bitter feud with the Church over the HHS contraceptive mandate, trying to force the Church to go against Her teachings and bend to his executive will.

Dolan discounted their pleas, and Donohue went on Lou Dobbs’ Tonight and “vigorously defended Dolan’s decision,” writing off faithful Catholics aggrieved by the matter as “piety police” — a phrase that brought about sniggering from Dobbs.

And in 2014, when the New York cardinal further scandalized the faithful by agreeing to be Grand Marshal of the St. Patrick’s Day Parade, in spite of the fact that parade organizers were allowing an activist gay group to march officially under its own banner for the first time in the parade’s 250-plus-year history, Donohue again went to bat for his friend. In a September 3 column, he wrote that “there should be no controversy” and he hoped the gay activists would “conduct themselves in a manner that honors St. Patrick” — nevermind the fact that they loudly promote sodomy and same-sex “marriage,” entirely antithetical to Church teaching and everything St. Patrick stood for.

In fact, Donohue had struck a Faustian bargain: As long as parade organizers would let a pro-life group march, he’d offer no complaint about the gay activists. The parade committee agreed — only to later renege on their promise and choose to exclude the pro-life group. Furious, Donohue issued a statement saying he was “finished” with the parade.

But the faithful could see it all from a mile away; when you make a deal with the devil, don’t be surprised when the devil fails to keep his end of the deal. Unsurprisingly, next year, not only will the parade not include a pro-life group, it will have not one but two gay activist groups marching under their own banners — while parade committee chairman John Lahey hopes to remove St. Patrick altogether as patron saint of the event.

A Question
The top canonist in the world along with the top doctrinal chief in the world have both publicly said Holy Communion must be denied to manifest public sinners, as mandated by canon 915 as well as long-established Church practice. Cardinal Raymond Burke, while head of the Vatican’s supreme court, and then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, have both said the clear language of the canon requires this result. But Cdl. Wuerl has defiantly taken a contrary position — and Donohue, his ever-faithful media crony, is right by his side on this.

In 2009, Wuerl upset the faithful when he said he would not deny Holy Communion to then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who — as a self-professed Catholic — has spent her entire political career running on a pro-abortion platform. Wuerl didn’t want to “wield Communion [as a] weapon,” he said — and Donohue is parroting Wuerl. In his recent complaint against ChurchMilitant.com, Donohue claims, “These crazies are mad at Wuerl because he doesn’t believe in using the Eucharist as a weapon to smack liberal Catholic politicians.”

The “Eucharist as weapon” argument has been soundly refuted by both Burke and Ratzinger, who wrote in a 2004 memo to the U.S. bishops:

This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgment on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.

And Cdl. Burke has noted that it’s not the minister who wields Communion as a weapon, but rather the pro-abortion politicians “using the Eucharist as a political tool” in their obstinate refusal to respect the Sacrament.

Bill Donohue has made a lucrative career (to the tune of nearly half a million dollars a year) out of purportedly defending faithful Catholics from attacks in the media — but who’s there to defend against Donohue when he goes on the attack against faithful Catholics whose particular brand of orthodoxy he dislikes? When he decides it’s more convenient to protect his friends of high rank by disparaging the lowly faithful as “piety police”?

From his powerful, well-paid perch, Donohue looks down his nose at faithful Catholics scandalized by the hierarchy, mischaracterizing them while enabling the establishment to continue its work of eroding the Faith and harming souls. His irrational screed against ChurchMilitant.com only proves the point. Catholics need to start asking themselves whether his is an outfit deserving of their support.

*********

  • I also was taken by Donohue and his public defense of Catholics, but my eyes have been opened. Thank you CM! I’ve leaned so much since I’ve become a premium member. So much I’ve forgotten, but I have instinctively remained aware of the abuses because of the pro-life work I was involved in before I became disabled. The hostility I was met with from different priests opened my eyes to so many other things going on in the Church. It also lead to a huge dispute with our bishop having to do with an openly gay priest. But this about Donohue I was totally unaware.


  • The weird thing is, I thought the organisation that the Catholic defense league pulled out of St Patricks parade because of the gay controversy, which would appear to me like he wasn’t supporting Dolan on that issue.
    It is unfortunately necessary to criticize priests, bishops and Cardinals when they clearly attack and undermine Church teaching. The Church is suffering grievously and the message of the gospel is not being proclaimed often because of the complete lack of discipline and judicious behaviour on the part of the clergy. I have tied myself in knots trying to avoid criticizing the most egregious cases but not any more. Michael Voris and his team, in my opinion, have the balance right. It is just always important to first contact a bishops office to get all the facts and get them to respond before a story is published first though. Secular journalists have zero ethics and dont do this because they want a sensational story, and a Catholic must always be different by being fair and giving all relevant perspectives which I trust CM does already.
    Church Militant does exactly what Vatican 2 said lay people should do, and participating in the life of the Church fully involves criticizing those who attack her teachings. Unfortunately a lot of these attacks come from within and the folks causing the destruction are often bad priests, bishops and Cardinals and they need to be called out on this. CM generally do a good job on this and I would stand shoulder to shoulder with Michael and his team against his critics.

      • Exactly. Donahue has turned into the Legacy Media’s
        “go-to” Catholic. Another one they pull out of storage and dust off for commentary on Catholic news events is former Roman Catholic, now Episcopalian priest, Alberto Cutié. What’s that one about?

  • I was certainly taken aback by the “they hate the Pope” comment from Donahue. I used to think he was a pretty good defender of the faith, but his attack on CM was completely without merit and seemingly unprovoked.

  • There’s an orthodox Catholic print magazine that I’ve subscribed to for years – even before being received into the Church – New Oxford Review – and I still have all my old issues. No time to dig out the September 2006 one right now, but I remember reading about Donohue back then, and the online Sep/06 issue has an editorial: “What Happened to Bill Donohue?” which reminded me of the following:

    “The June 2-8, 2002 [issue of the] National Catholic Register…printed a statement from Donohue on the [Archbishop Rembert] Weakland sex scandal: ‘It needs to be asked what social good is served when current disclosures of past indiscretions are made public…. This kind of sexual McCarthyism serves no constructive purpose.’

    “When it was revealed that Deal Hudson [the former editor / publisher of Crisis magazine] committed adultery with a female student of his, Donohue fired off a press release saying that the girl was a ‘drunk’, implying that she had it coming. If you didn’t know, neocon Donohue and neocon Hudson are big pals.”

    “Donohue also defended Fr. [Marcial] Maciel, the founder of the Legionaries of Christ, against charges of pederasty, calling them ‘balderdash’. How wrong he was!”

    “In a press release dated July 15, 2004, Donohue said: ‘It is not only preposterous to believe that Msgr. [John] Woolsey would squeeze an elderly woman [Rose Cale] for money, it is patently obscene for anyone to make such an allegation. I have known him for over a decade, and if he were the conniving type, I would have known it by now…. Msgr. Woolsey is innocent.”…The New York Times (May 27, 2006) reported that Woolsey pleaded guilty to second-degree grand larceny.

    ____
    These are just some of the howlers attributed to Donohue. My NOR link will follow immediately (in accordance with standard CM practice it will first have to clear moderation) but the full article may only be accessible to print subscribers.

      • MIKE: I don’t know if the quotes show a corrupt conscience so much as a man a few bricks shy of a full load, but you may be right. Whatever. Here’s another pearl of wisdom from what Mr Donohue generously calls his brain, as reported in by Brietbart.com

        Bill Donohue Criticized For Blaming Hebdo Victims Provoked Violence
        “Upon the brutal slaying of 12 satirical journalists in Paris this week Donohue, who runs the Catholic League for Civil and Religious Rights, condemned the killings, but went on to say, ‘But neither should we tolerate the kind of intolerance that provoked this violent reaction… What unites Muslims in their anger against Charlie Hebdo is the vulgar manner in which Muhammad has been portrayed. What they object to is being intentionally insulted over the course of many years. On this aspect, I am in total agreement with them.’ ”

  • I looked up this Bill Donohue wing-nut and found his article. Very interesting. In all of the articles CM have posted on Cdl. Whirl the right to reply was open for at least some time after posting. If BD was so incensed you would have thought he would have put some class of retort into the comm boxes or come to the defense of this great gift.
    Nope, instead the Chairman of the Politburo sat back and composed his vermilion tipped poisonous defense of his Communist friend from the comfort of Catholic Leagues closed blog.

    I’m sure there is a word for those who editorialize from their expensive ivory towers while offering no right to reply. Escapes me for the moment. I’m still dealing with his being a sociologist.

    Well, at least he has an -ology. I guess that stands for something.

  • I remember seeing highlights of the Al Smith Dinner that night. I distinctly remember that moment when Obama said something to Dolan and he went nuts laughing. I was disgusted. And then they have that picture now of the same moment. I remember thinking “How does no one think this is nuts?” Shortly after that I discovered Churchmilitant. Thank you for everything MV and Churchmilitant staff.

    • Stephanie, if you’re referring to Bill Donohue’s half-mill annual stipend, he didn’t earn that as a prelate. In fact, he’s a divorced father of two – not that I necessarily hold that against him, because he may not have been a voluntary participant in the divorce proceedings. It may be that his ex, like the rest of us, just couldn’t stand his pomposity anymore. He’s not real clergy, but I wonder if he might be an “Extraordinary Minister of the Eucharist”?


  • Oh gosh, Michael, your truth makes me cringe……because I know first hand that it is true…….that we cannot get close to our Archbishops……IF our letters are answered…..we are dismissed.

    Donahue has had my support for many years BECAUSE he fights the secular world……but you are correct…….he won’t LOOK at what’s going on INSIDE the Church.

    Can all this get more painful……I think not.


  • I had no idea that Bill Donahue was such a jerk. Over the years I saw him interviewed on EWTN. several times, and he was all about protecting the rights of the church in the “public square”. A devout and pugnacious man ready to do battle for the church. This is a very different side of Mr. D. Very nasty. Very dishonest. And this attitude of Cdl Wuerl not use Holy Communion as a “weapon” reveals a very profane soul, someone who worships false God’s. God is substantially present under the appearance of bread and wine. When this profane man dies his soul will go to this God, who is infinitely holy, to be judged. Wuerl doesn’t appear to have sufficient grace in his soul to grasp the sacrilegious nature of his actions. This is something one might expect from a pagan like Richard Dawkins.

About abyssum

I am a retired Roman Catholic Bishop, Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi, Texas
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to DONOHUE DOESN’T DOUBT DOLAN DEMANDS DUTIFUL DOCILITY

  1. philsevilla says:

    Bishop Rene,Thank you for exposing the hypocricy of Bill Donohue.God bless,Phil Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone. From: ABYSSUS ABYSSUM INVOCAT / DEEP CALLS TO DEEPSent: Monday, November 23, 2015 10:47 PMTo: philsevilla@att.netReply To: ABYSSUS ABYSSUM INVOCAT / DEEP CALLS TO DEEPSubject: [New post] DONOHUE DOESN’T DOUBT DOLAN DEMANDS DUTIFUL DOCILITY

    a:hover { color: red; } a { text-decoration: none; color: #0088cc; } a.primaryactionlink:link, a.primaryactionlink:visited { background-color: #2585B2; color: #fff; } a.primaryactionlink:hover, a.primaryactionlink:active { background-color: #11729E !important; color: #fff !important; }

    /* @media only screen and (max-device-width: 480px) { .post { min-width: 700px !important; } } */ WordPress.com

    abyssum posted: “!!!!

    Bill Donohue: Establishment Lapdog News: US News, Crisis in the Church, Commentary

    by Christine Niles  â€¢  ChurchMilitant.com  â€¢  November 20, 2015

    In a column published Friday, Catholic League’s Bill Donohue goes after ChurchMilita”

  2. john@shalom-quest.com says:

    So Bishop, what do you think of Donahue and Voris? I kinda sorta think that neither is s all goof or all bad, but I am a very simple person. I simply want our Church to help me get to heaven (I.e. Teach me THE faith). Blessed Thanksgiving. We will in Santa Fe.

    Shalom. John

    Sent from my iPad

    >

Comments are closed.