…and this is a 
Hooray for Catholics!
Category: Kooks
Posted on: November 19, 2008 9:27 PM, by PZ Myers
Don't be too shocked at the title; my arguments are with Catholicism, not the poor unfortunate victims of that dogma, the Catholics. In this case, one Catholic organization, Catholics for Choice (uh-oh—already, I can tell that one argument against them will be that they aren't True Catholics™) has published a scathing criticism of Bill Donohue and the Catholic League. Here's their summary:
From the beginning, the Catholic League was marked by a schizophrenic attitude that would become its hallmark: It simultaneously argued for the right of conservative Catholics to impose their values in the public sphere, while arguing against the right of others in the public sphere to offer legitimate criticism of Catholics or Catholicism.
The Catholic League tactics are i) manufacture controversy; ii) try to intimidate the "enemy"; iii) bully the opposition; iv) complain early and often; v) attack popular culture; and vi) silence the loyal opposition.
In utilizing these tactics it actively embarrasses, intimidates, bullies and distorts reality to suppress critics of the Catholic church, the Vatican, and the church's many controversial policies.
Catholic League president Bill Donohue is in a constant quest for the next "controversy" to keep his particular brand of reactionary Catholicism in the media spotlight.
Once Donohue has found a "controversy" he uses wildly inflated rhetoric that is sure to inflame--either in print or in one of his infamous cable TV news appearances--and then stages a protest or takes out an ad in the New York Timesto attract attention. Then he waits for the seemingly ever-receptive press to show up.
When it comes to peddling its special brand of inflammatory rhetoric, the media and arts have been a special target of the Catholic League since the mid-1990s.
The number of examples of anti-Catholicism claimed by the Catholic League grew from 140 in 1995 to 320 in 2006, yet the only thing that seems to have actually increased is the League's definition of anti-Catholic activity.
As thin-skinned as Donohue appears to be when it comes to any one else referring to Catholicism, Jesus or the Virgin Mary, apparently his rules don't apply to himself and his friends.
Unable to explain away the Catholic church's embarrassing pedophilia scandal, Donohue tried to turn it back on progressive Catholic activists, claiming that they were exaggerating the scandal to try and bring down the church.
When the media cover the tempests he manages to whip up from time to time, few ever stop to examine the basis for his objections--they just cover the dog fight.
Donohue claims that the Catholic League has some 350,000 members and that number is often used by the media when referencing the organization's supposed clout. These numbers, however, appear to be a highly inflated picture of the Catholic League's actual membership.
Right on!
Read the whole thing, all 25 pages of it. It's a very useful takedown.
Comments
Posted by: Jimminy Christmas | November 19, 2008 9:35 PM
Well, I guess we know who the next hysterical boycott/protest/New York Times Ad made by the Catholic League is going to be against.
Posted by: clinteas | November 19, 2008 9:38 PM
Looks like a very reasonable bunch of people.
But they are sooo not mainstream catholic,its not funny.
Kind of a fringe group within the fringe cult.
But Kudos to them for doing what they are doing.
Posted by: CalGeorge | November 19, 2008 9:38 PM
Wow. Footnotes and everything!
Posted by: Bob | November 19, 2008 9:39 PM
I find it interesting that some catholics oppose the vatican's position on abortion because it contradicts Aquinas' view of the quickening (something the vatican never actually repudiated).
But, obviously, most catholics just shuffle around like mindless sheep, doing what they're told...
Posted by: Benjamin Geiger | November 19, 2008 9:40 PM
clinteas @ #2:
The enemy of my enemy is a useful asset. Remember that.
Posted by: John C. Randolph | November 19, 2008 9:40 PM
So, he's a Catholic Jesse Jackson?
-jcr
Posted by: Captain Mike | November 19, 2008 9:43 PM
What do you know? Religious moderates spoke up against fanaticism for once.
Posted by: Rick R | November 19, 2008 9:45 PM
Reading through the list- why does the Catholic League sound just like Fox News? Or the GOP??
Posted by: Kel | November 19, 2008 9:49 PM
There are a lot of decent people in the catholic church, it's just a shame that they have so many nutters as teh public face of religion.
Though it doesn't make their beliefs any less silly, but as long as they aren't trying to impose it on others I couldn't care less.
Posted by: ndt | November 19, 2008 9:52 PM
They may be "poor unfortunate victims", but remember, they are willing victims. Nothing stops them from leaving the church, but they stay anyway.
Posted by: Mozglubov | November 19, 2008 9:53 PM
What a happy read.
Posted by: ggab | November 19, 2008 9:54 PM
I hope this thing gets some press.
I'd love to see it on the national news, but I doubt that would happen.
Maybe if old Bill goes daffy about it. That would make it an interesting story.
The catholic wars!
Posted by: Paul Lundgren | November 19, 2008 10:00 PM
I especially like the part where they fisk the MSM for simply copying and pasting information like the alleged 350,000 membership number. It's often used in the news business where you're just filing column length in the paper and some hack is too overworked or under-concerned with the truth.
And Donohue's response is deliciously anticipated.
Posted by: Sven | November 19, 2008 10:03 PM
Congratulations to the authors of this well researched criticism. They make a point and they make it well.
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 19, 2008 10:06 PM
It's good to know that some of them are willing to speak out in order to clean house. Distancing themselves from that Donohue and co. is a smart move.
Posted by: Jeanette | November 19, 2008 10:07 PM
This is what we need to see, moderates speaking out against the religious extremists. Sometimes it seems like there are no moderates, because the inflamed loonies are the ones we hear from most of the time.
Posted by: sd | November 19, 2008 10:08 PM
"Donohue claims that the Catholic League has some 350,000 members and that number is often used by the media when referencing the organization's supposed clout. These numbers, however, appear to be a highly inflated picture of the Catholic League's actual membership."
Oh. My. Lord. Catholics for Free Choice, which has historically been more or less Frances Kissling plus a fax machine, is accusing The Catholic League of inflating its membership?
This may be true. Much as it would be technically true for Pol Pot to call The Hamburgler ethically questionable. But still, the chutzpah makes my brain hurt.
Posted by: Josh West | November 19, 2008 10:10 PM
#5
"The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy, nothing more"
"Seven Successful Habits of Highly Effective Pirates"
Posted by: JoshS | November 19, 2008 10:11 PM
It looks like this band of Catholics is on the road to its own modern-day Reformation. Bring it on. Schisms can lay the groundwork for real intellectual freedom (he says over-optimistically). If they could just get rid of the whole God thing. . . .
Posted by: Brian | November 19, 2008 10:13 PM
This makes me happier than I can properly express.
I often despair at how it invariably falls to us atheists to protest Christian nutjobbery, because so often Christians simply will not criticize each other, at least not publicly.
A friend who was hanging out in a group of Christians at the time of Fallwell's death told me how they were all quietly relieved at his passing, as they felt he made all Christians look bad. Why, I agonized, couldn't they have stood up and said, that man does not speak for me and my beliefs? But of course they would never do that, for that would certainly be unchristian. And so it goes.
As an atheist, the last thing I want to do is get muddled up in someone else's religious beliefs. Yet every time these whackjobs try to pass bullshit laws, their fellow Christians stand mutely on the sidelines, and it once again it falls to us to try to preserve religious freedom.
This has to change. Christians need to learn how to criticize their own, or else the loudest and maddest members will continue to speak for all of them. I hope that this little event is a sign that maybe it is changing, at least a little bit.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | November 19, 2008 10:18 PM
Dinesh D'Souza sits on the Catholic League's board of directors!? Either I hadn't heard that before, or I managed to forget it, which would be odd.
Posted by: Kubenzi | November 19, 2008 10:23 PM
They forgot one:
Donohue gives catholicism a black eye by repeatedly threatening to give just that to his opponents through violence.
Posted by: Michael Hawkins | November 19, 2008 10:39 PM
Absolutely lovely. It looks like religious leaders in Maine have a similar idea.
Posted by: BobC | November 19, 2008 10:50 PM
It's a very useful takedown.
I agree. I'm surprised this excellent criticism of the lunatic Bill Donohue came from Catholics. I'd be even more impressed if these Catholics threw out their religion. Why be a member of a religion that exists only to make money from gullible people?
Posted by: Michael Hawkins | November 19, 2008 10:51 PM
I said that it looks like religious leaders in Maine are doing something similiar. I should have actually read the post. I thought that this was about gay rights when I saw "Catholics for Choice".
Posted by: Bronze Dog | November 19, 2008 11:01 PM
Go, non-schizo Catholics!
Glad to see someone within this guy's sphere working on taking him down.
Posted by: spgreenlaw | November 19, 2008 11:17 PM
Hm. That's certainly interesting and commendable. Although I don't understand the point in staying in an organization who's hierarchy disagrees with you and is more or less uninterested in what its members have to say (the Catholic Church fits this to the letter). I applaud Catholics for Choice and their work. But honestly, their values simply do not match up to the values of their Church, as has been made abundantly clear time and time again by Bishops' associations and the Magisterium itself.
I would be much more impressed/happy if they left the Roman Catholic Church altogether, so as to reduce its legitimacy by slimming its ranks. They needn't be godless (though that would be ideal), but surely more liberal Christian faiths are better suited for them.
In any case, a take down of Donahue is welcome no matter who issues it, and perhaps this will hit closer to home for the bastard.
Posted by: Rey Fox | November 19, 2008 11:27 PM
"but surely more liberal Christian faiths are better suited for them."
But you see, if they remain under the Catholic banner, then Donohue can't shout that they're a bunch of heretics out to destroy Catholicism. All he can do is wail about them not being True Catholics, which hopefully will be sniffed out as the phony baloney that it is.
Posted by: Deborah | November 19, 2008 11:30 PM
I would be much more impressed/happy if they left the Roman Catholic Church altogether
A very difficult thing to do, emotionally, for Catholics. I'm an ex-Catholic - believe me, it is easier to become an atheist than it is to go to another church. Besides, they might feel that their church has left them, and they are trying to take it back.
Posted by: chris | November 19, 2008 11:33 PM
I have belonged to 5 or 6 different catholic churches in my life. With varying levels of involvement in each one. My mother-in-law practically runs her local church. I went to a catholic school for 7 years, my children attend a catholic school. I have only heard of or seen anything about the catholic league on episodes of hardball. I can't say I have ever even heard another catholic say that such a group existed. Most catholics in this country enjoy seeing their neighbors and eating doughnuts on sunday morning.
Posted by: John Morales | November 19, 2008 11:39 PM
Blake @21, Dinesh is mentioned in the Board of Advisors, not the Board of Directors.
Posted by: spgreenlaw | November 19, 2008 11:43 PM
Rey Fox,
"Technically", since the Catholic Church, as far doctrine is concerned, is not a democracy of the laity but a top down system for protecting God's word, and since the hierarchy views one's vote as an extension of one's spiritual life, they aren't good Catholics; I wouldn't go so far as to say they aren't true Catholics.
Deborah,
You have a point. I attended nine years of Catholic School and I saw how attached some families were to their parish. My mother converted from Catholicism to the Episcopalian Church for similar reasons that I stated in my first post, so it can be done, though I do agree that it is often hard. Catholicism does seem to be a cultural cornerstone as much as a religious one (and yeah, those two things frequently intersect to begin with) for many of it's members, so I can understand the difficulty.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | November 19, 2008 11:59 PM
But do the Catholics for Choice dub Donohue as (for whatever reason) not a True Catholic™?
If not, then CfC must themselves not be True Catholics™, because only True Catholics™ actually care whether anyone else is or pretends to be a True Catholic™...
Posted by: Thesk | November 20, 2008 12:02 AM
This actually confirms something I've thought for a long time- despite having perhaps the most monolithic religion, Catholics express a surprising diversity of thought - especially when you compare any given catholic parish to any given Evangelical megachurch. This might have something to do with teaching the bible allegorically versus literally.
Anyway, Crackergate and Scalia not withstanding, I prefer dealing with Catholics who can keep their crazy in check most of the time.
Posted by: KristinMH | November 20, 2008 12:11 AM
spgreenlaw, even if you elect to leave the Catholic Church, you are still technically counted as a member, because baptism is forever. It sucks, I know.
Posted by: spgreenlaw | November 20, 2008 12:18 AM
KristinMH,
I know that, but empty pews and emptier collection plates make the Church look a lot less important in the eyes of everyone else. Which would be the point.
Posted by: KristinMH | November 20, 2008 12:25 AM
The pews are already pretty empty, except at Christmas and Easter. It's just that Bill Donahue and his ilk like to say shit like "There are 3 million Catholics in Canada!!!1!!" and people think that gives what they say some weight.
Posted by: Hank Roberts | November 20, 2008 12:33 AM
Shocking news from California:
http://www.nukees.com/comics/nukees20081119.gif
Apparently atheists are still allowed to marry.
Posted by: Aquaria | November 20, 2008 12:35 AM
Wow, DonaHO, nice going with the sock puppetry.
1) From what I recall, CFFC has never established chapters in any region, because some Catholics who support them fear, or might even risk, excommunication. So it's hard to tell what their numbers may or may not be.
2) Given that, CFFC hasn't made claims about their membership numbers that I've ever seen, so...your point?
2) Whatever CFFC may have been in the past, its new incarnation, CFC is definitely not that way now (and hasn't been that way for many, many years). You do know about the board of directors that consist of over a dozen people, right? You do know that they have a magazine, right, and I'm talking about the kind that one person alone couldn't put together? They also have interns and international coordinators, and I don't know how many other people actively working for their cause.
Really, before opening your mouth, do a little research. I had known of CFFC from my NARAL/Planned Parenthood days, and thought your description of one person + fax seemed off. For such a small organization, they sure made a lot of noise, even back in the 80s. So I looked them up! Imagine that! And it turns out they haven't been the one person + fax operation for a long--LONG--time.
I don't have to agree with their religious beliefs to have a common cause with them. Most of the pro-choice Catholics in my area are like what chris described, enjoying the social community of seeing their neighbors every Sunday, more than adhering to dogma.
Posted by: spgreenlaw | November 20, 2008 12:36 AM
It's certainly true that Bill and Co. use the Church's trumped up numbers to scrabble for extra legitimacy, but I think that illusion becomes harder and harder to keep up when the churches, one by one, start going out of business. Eventually people would catch on.
Also, think of what would happen if the legions of pro-choice Catholics actually joined churches that wouldn't mark their political ideas as sins, and that actually voiced the opinions of its community rather than silently poo-pooed it. The liberal choir would swell, and their cultural currency would wax as the Roman Church's wanes. I know that I would rather have someone like Cornel West on TV panels than Bill Donahue.
Posted by: Capital Dan | November 20, 2008 12:49 AM
Yes. That's right. Attack the messenger rather than the message like a good, little, intellectually-dishonest idiot.
Tell me, how do the membership numbers of the Catholics for Free Choice nullify what they are saying when they criticize Donohue's lies about the numbers in his mob?
I mean, I can criticize Donohue for lying about this, and I am but one person.
You really came off particularly dense on that comment, sd. But, please, answer my question.
Posted by: Zipi | November 20, 2008 12:53 AM
KristinMH,
There is a way to escape the Catholic Church officially, even if you were baptized, through the process of apostasy. It can be messy, but it is doable. The certificate of apostasy signed by my (ex)-archbishop proves that it is doable.
Posted by: Capital Dan | November 20, 2008 12:58 AM
Wow. That seems like a whole heap of pointless busywork to get out of something which you can just as easily walk away from without any effort.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | November 20, 2008 12:58 AM
John Morales (#31):
Yes, I noticed that after I posted my comment. I had read up to p. 13, which under the heading "Playing Politics" says,
The source for this statement is, however, the CL website, which lists all of these individuals under the "Board of Advisors". Copy-edit on aisle 5!
Posted by: Pat | November 20, 2008 1:05 AM
Cult politics. In these cases (denial of reality) the audience is the faithful, not the condemned. One solidifies support by painting enemies, existent or not. Gossiping on a grand scale.
It's kind of sad when you look at it this way. Bill is just an office sharptongue writ large. His New York Times ads just passive-aggressive notes by the water cooler about washing your coffee cups. Bids to hedge political power by appealing to an us-versus-them mentality and painting chaos to come if events spiral out of control.
Yes, the original prophecy of the apocalypse was a post-it proclaiming "limit yourself to two sugars only."
Posted by: sd | November 20, 2008 1:20 AM
Capital Dan:
Work on your reading comprehension. I acknowledged that CFC's criticism of The Catholic League's membership numbers may very well be accurate. But CFC itself is a skeleton organization with almost no grassroots support among Catholics.
For years CFC has been quoted in news story after news story to illustrate the "controversy" within Catholicsm about this or that subject. But the media, in its unthinking quest for "balance" has almost never noted a simple fact: that CFC speaks for nobody except its tiny staff. Its a press release factory play-acting as a movement.
That's why I used the word chutzpah. Their statements are not neccessarily wrong. But they take a lot of nerve, given that CFC itself thrives on mis-representing its influence.
Posted by: James F | November 20, 2008 1:29 AM
Thesk @34 wrote:
Indeed. Consider for a moment that Joe Biden, Bill O'Reilly, Ken Miller, and Michael Behe are all Catholics.
Posted by: Pikemann Urge | November 20, 2008 1:49 AM
James F: how true. Just look into the history of their saints, scholars etc. It's a real melting pot of ideas. Just reading a few lines of Clement (re. justification) gave me food for thought!
Captian Mike #7 - well said. It makes you wonder, doesn't it.
Posted by: echidna | November 20, 2008 1:53 AM
sd@46 wrote:
Could you provide some detail please? I've been all over their website, and I don't see any claims for membership numbers or claims of influence.
What I do see is a detailed description of what issues they are involved in, and the stance taken on them.
Posted by: blf | November 20, 2008 1:56 AM
The Foobarians are arguing with the Barfooians about The Magic Xyzzyism. Yawn...
Posted by: Capital Dan | November 20, 2008 2:19 AM
*sigh* So, you would rather they stay silent? Or, are you impressed by their "courage?" Or, do you assert that they are wrong?
Posted by: raven | November 20, 2008 3:17 AM
Shorter Catholics for Choice. Bill Donohue is a self serving, brain dead, lying, psychotic kook.
While true, this is so self evident as to be trite.
Donohue is a clown or comedian, funny in a spooky, "I am fruitbat crazy", Michelle Bachmann sort of way.
Posted by: raven | November 20, 2008 3:28 AM
Catholics in the USA usually reflect that national stats on most things. At 23% of the population, they are large enough to heavily influence the national stats, this is not an accident.
There is a huge and growing gulf between the priests and the members. They can't even get priests anymore among other things, no one wants to be a lifelong celibate these days for no real reason.
So it is don't ask, don't tell. If the priests actually tossed all Catholics for violating one thing or another, virtually all their members would be gone. No memebers=no money=no religion. A recipe for religious suicide.
The birth rate of Catholics is identical to the national average. 53% of USAians voted for Obama. 54% of Catholics voted for Obama. See a trend here?
Posted by: 386sx | November 20, 2008 3:29 AM
Read the whole thing, all 25 pages of it. It's a very useful takedown.
Yep I think they nailed it pretty good.
Posted by: 386sx | November 20, 2008 3:33 AM
Yep I think they nailed it pretty good.
I meant Bill Donohue, I wasn't referring to Jesus.
Catholics wouldn't nail Jesus, because they think that was a bad thing to do. Unless somebody else did it for them, in which case it was a good thing. Or something!
Posted by: raven | November 20, 2008 3:44 AM
Yes, that is absolutely true. My organization, The Galactic Catholic League for Truth and Justice is far more important.
1. We span the galaxy. With members scattered througout the known universe as well.
2. Our title is much more grandiose and important.
3. Our membership is much larger and more influential than Donohue's. It consists of me and 2 cats. Not only are our numbers larger than the Catholic League's, but none of us have been diagnosed as either retarded or psychotic. Several of our members, in fact, are avid and proficient hunters.
Donohue pshhttt!!! I would call him a mouse but that would wake up the other 2/3 of TGCLFT&J and Donohue would be in serious trouble.
Posted by: G. Tingey | November 20, 2008 3:50 AM
Sorry, but WRONG
The catholic church has ALWAYS been a dictatorship, with the pope in charge. If you are a catholic, you ALREADY KNOW THIS.
Protest is basically, futile, because those are the operating rules of the organisation. Schisms have only arisen in the psat, bacuse of disagreements among the "higher" echelons of the
partychurch.If you disagree - YOU ARE NO LONGER A CATHOLIC, by definition.
You are a PROTEST-ANT.
Religion, stupidity, feh.
Posted by: Shirakawasuna | November 20, 2008 4:09 AM
Capital Dan, it looks like all sd has done is pointed out that the Catholic for Choice also implicitly overstate their importance. That's it. You can take your straw man elsewhere, thanks.
Posted by: Matt Heath | November 20, 2008 4:21 AM
Well "protestant" originally meant "one who protests", and the RC church certainly is structured as a dictatorship, bit you are wrong on a stack of other stuff. Being a protestant in the etymological sense doesn't automatically make you not a Catholic. Being a Protestant in the modern sense of following Luther's reformation does, but they are distinct meanings of the word. Being a(n etymological) protestant may make someone a bad Catholic or a heretic, but the church will keep defining them as a Catholic regardless (they really don't like letting people go). If that person also self-identifies as a Catholic then they surely are (the fact that WE think they shouldn't be so classed is hardly relevent).There's actually a fairly rich tradition of dissent within the RCC. If it's done by properly licensed theologians who promise not stir up the masses, it's even encouraged by hierarchs.
Posted by: jpf | November 20, 2008 4:26 AM
OT, but yesterday was the first time I ever encountered actual Chick Tracts in the wild. There were some piles of them on the benches in front of a hospital I was visiting, so I picked one up for a laugh, but instead I feel ripped off. Instead of a classic like "Big Daddy" or that one about Dungeons & Dragons, I got "He Never Told Us!"
It's a Chick Tract whose sole purpose is advertising Chick Tracts! From the plot the title should've been "He Never Gave Us Chick Tracts!" The target audience, judging by the main character Charlie, are Christians who are already going to Heaven, but who've neglected to give Jack Chick money. What the hell?
This was a military hospital they were left at, so maybe the person who left them just assumed that everyone there was a Christian, what with the Christian take-over of the military. I was expecting the tract to contain things to insult my sensibilities, but not in that sort of meta way.
Posted by: RickrOll | November 20, 2008 4:29 AM
yep, i had the shittiest drama teacher back in High School. Doesn't mean she wasn't a teacher, and the school certainly wasn't gonna let her go (the other English teacher had much more intelligence and left as soon as his contract was up the end of that year). Perfectly good example of the principle, right Heath?
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | November 20, 2008 5:13 AM
And a fairly rich tradition of torturing heretics until they recant.
Posted by: GS | November 20, 2008 5:13 AM
You've read the whole thing???
I don't believe it!
Posted by: gazza | November 20, 2008 5:21 AM
This dispute in the catholic church is similar to the recent fuss arising from comments by the Bishop of Lancaster (UK) who accused 'educated' catholics of diluting catholic dogma.
Catholic dogma, and its dominance by the pope and his cardinals is as about a restrictive a worldview as any religion has. Virtually any person in that church who hasn't a 15th century outlook has to modify that dogma for their daily life - how many catholics in the western world really do not use some form of contracption, for example?
So it doesn't surprise me, an ex-catholic, that there's continual tensions between believers with a medieval outlook and those who have some knowledge of modern life.
Posted by: negentropyeater | November 20, 2008 5:26 AM
Disagree with whom ? The vatican, or the Catholic League ?
Don't confuse the two !
Posted by: Walton | November 20, 2008 5:30 AM
In response to G. Tingey at #57:
Although the Catholic Church does teach that the Pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra on matters of doctrine, this power has only actually been exercised once since its proclamation in 1870; in 1950, the Assumption of Mary was defined by Pope Pius XIII as an article of faith for Catholics.
Ordinary papal encyclicals (such as those on abortion or contraception) are, therefore, not claimed to be infallible. They are considered to be part of the "ordinary magisterium" - the normal teaching authority of the Church - and believers are required to give "religious submission of intellect and will", but not to treat them as an article of faith. Thus it is possible to disagree with the Church's stance on contraception, for instance, and still remain a practising Catholic.
But yes, the Catholic Church is, of course, an authoritarian structure - which is something that I dislike. Religious views should, fundamentally, be individual; and acceptance (or non-acceptance) of religious doctrine should be from the mind and the heart, not simply because of blind submission to an organised authority. All human beings are imperfect, corruptible and prone to error; therefore there is no justification for any person having authority over the religious views of another.
Posted by: Walton | November 20, 2008 5:30 AM
In response to G. Tingey at #57:
Although the Catholic Church does teach that the Pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra on matters of doctrine, this power has only actually been exercised once since its proclamation in 1870; in 1950, the Assumption of Mary was defined by Pope Pius XIII as an article of faith for Catholics.
Ordinary papal encyclicals (such as those on abortion or contraception) are, therefore, not claimed to be infallible. They are considered to be part of the "ordinary magisterium" - the normal teaching authority of the Church - and believers are required to give "religious submission of intellect and will", but not to treat them as an article of faith. Thus it is possible to disagree with the Church's stance on contraception, for instance, and still remain a practising Catholic.
But yes, the Catholic Church is, of course, an authoritarian structure - which is something that I dislike. Religious views should, fundamentally, be individual; and acceptance (or non-acceptance) of religious doctrine should be from the mind and the heart, not simply because of blind submission to an organised authority. All human beings are imperfect, corruptible and prone to error; therefore there is no justification for any person having authority over the religious views of another.
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 20, 2008 5:34 AM
The catholics have always been against independent thought, hence the refusal to translate the bible from Latin into any regional languages - one of the factors contributing to the reformation.
The bible, of course, is down on it from the start with that whole Adam and Eve eating from the tree of knowledge thing. Moral of the story: don't think for yourself; do as you're told and everything will work out okay and no-one has to get kicked out of anywhere.
Perhaps, if they're lucky, these catholics who've decided to cast a discerning eye on the politics of their brothers-and-sisters-in-faith will continue to scrutinise and eventually reach the point where the realise it's all a sham and revert to atheism.
Posted by: Matt Heath | November 20, 2008 6:42 AM
Yep. Not denying that or arguing in support of catholicism. Just fact checking G. Tingey. We don't want to be collectively lying for (NOT Jebus) after all.Posted by: gazza | November 20, 2008 7:39 AM
@Walton
"Thus it is possible to disagree with the Church's stance on contraception, for instance, and still remain a practising Catholic."
But if you do disagree with the standard dogma of the church they do take action against you. My uncle, an old fashioned Irish Catholic in the UK, divorced and wanted to marry again. When he did in a civil ceremony (wasn't possible in the church) he was excluded from taking holy communion thereafterm- the essential part of attending church as a catholic.
OK - an atheist couldn't care less about this superstitious nonsense but it was hurtful of them to do this to an old man who was so committed to them. He still went to mass but as a 'second class catholic'. And bishops in the UK have stated that people such as Blair (a recent convert) should be denied communion because they are indifferent on abortion - somehow they don't seem to have had the nerve to do that yet.
So they can be a spiteful lot when they are defied....
Posted by: woody | November 20, 2008 7:41 AM
"It simultaneously argued for the right of conservative Catholics to impose their values in the public sphere, while arguing against the right of others in the public sphere to offer legitimate criticism of Catholics or Catholicism."
You can insert the name of any sect or cult in place of "Catholic," or simply supply the generic term "religion/religious," and be equally accurate. This is because they allegedly speak for some "god," and no one is allowed to criticize "God."
Posted by: notthedroids | November 20, 2008 7:59 AM
Oogedy-boogedy!
Posted by: Michelle | November 20, 2008 8:18 AM
You know what? I don't care if these folks are catholic.... I like them. They're right on the damn money!
That's the kind of religious people I like. They aren't fanatics, they're level-headed people. Sure, I think they believe in a tooth fairy, but they don't seem set on poisoning everyone with it unlike Donohue.
Posted by: hermit | November 20, 2008 8:18 AM
Didn't Bill Donohue (aka Archie Bunker on amphetamines) recently claim that the Gay community has moved to an anti-abortion stance as the direct result of the finding of the "gay gene", and the reason for this political shift was because gays feared that parents would start screening their fetus for this gene and abort it if found?
Posted by: Moses | November 20, 2008 8:52 AM
Let's be clear of the facts here. And are they making false claims to great levels of membership? Like the Catholic League? Who, by the $30 contributions has 83,000 contributions (memberships)?
Are they pretending to speak for all Catholics and the Catholic Church like Donahue? Are they pretending to be "the answer" for all things, all issues Catholic?
There's nothing wrong with being small. Lots of these organizations are very small. And don't pretend otherwise as they continue on in their narrow-range advocacy.
But I also notice that they run a $3,000,000 budget. And have a staff of 20. So your intended put-down quip, when compared the Catholic League's similar circumstance is, oh..., a bit ironic...
Especially as nowhere on their site do they make grandiose claims to membership. So, your stupid quips aside, we're seeing the way the game is played by two groups that are, financially, similar.
Donahue lies drastically about his size and influence. The CFFC doesn't.
In the real world, where truth does matter in the long run, there is something wrong with lying about your size. And pretending you're a mainstream representative group of all Catholicism when, in reality, you're not.
And, for the record, there are over 80 million Catholics in the US and Donahue gets contributions for 83K members. Or, about one of every million Catholics... That's pretty damn pathetic and doesn't give you the right to speak for all Catholics on all issues and brand anyone who doesn't agree with you "a bad Catholic."
Posted by: DuckPhup | November 20, 2008 8:57 AM
This may be somewhat off-topic, but I'm reminded of a controversial work of 'art' that appeared a while back, and stirred up a huge controversy. It came a few years after 'Piss Christ'. It was a combination sculpture/picture, made primarily out of elephant dung, and titled "The Virgin Mary." International (primarily catholic) outrage ensued... people lobbied to discontinue funding for the NEA... the artist's life was threatened (sound familiar?)... demonstrations were held... it went on for weeks. Thankfully, nobody got killed....
... but nobody GOT IT, either.
With respect to the technical and aesthetic aspects of art, it was not very good... it looked like it could have been made by a semi-talented 6th-grader with mud-pie experience. And considering the elephant dung, it certainly could not have been expected to have a very long shelf-life. So... why was it 'art'?
Well, one of the primary objectives of ANY work of art is to emotionally involve the viewer... to make the viewer a participant in the 'art experience'. In that regard, this particular work was one of the most wildly successful art works in history...
... but STILL, nobody gets it.
Well... here's the secret... the 'art' was in the NAME of the work. If it had been named "Mrs. Smith", or something like that, nobody would have gotten emotionally involved, or even CARED very much; it just would have been a sloppily done, smelly, poor excuse for art that would have lasted for a few days, and then vanished from sight and from memory, forever. However, as 'The Virgin Mary', it STILL elicits an emotional response (mainly outrage and sputtering apoplexy) from cathy-licks, to this day... even from people who never even saw it, but just HEARD about it... YEARS after it was consigned to the dumpster.
(The artist ought to be encouraged to make another one, and title it 'The Prophet Mohammed', and see what happens. Now THAT would be 'art'.)
Anyway... I'd like to suggest that from a certain perspective, PZ's 'host desecration' might be considered 'art'... and that designing and creating 'art' projects focused on honking-off catholics (and other flavors of christ-cult delusionists) might be an interesting hobby. And part of the 'art experience' would be the snits, hissy-fits and terminal apoplexy that would be induced in Donohue... which would appear to be a reasonable basis upon which to judge, rank, rate and score such art projects.
Posted by: Skippy | November 20, 2008 9:06 AM
It's nice to see other Catholics calling Donohue out as a whackjob. My poor Catholic father will never admit out loud that anyone who claims to "speak for the church" has their head up their ass, even when it's someone like Donohue who just -decided for himself- that he'd be the mouthpiece of the church. I'm glad that at least a few Catholic folk can see through the hollow, persecutorial rhetoric that the Catholic League exists solely to spout.
Posted by: co | November 20, 2008 9:11 AM
I just wanted to point out a three-order-of-magnitude problem in the math done here (the "pathetic" point still stands, just not as hyperbolically).
Posted by: recovering catholic | November 20, 2008 9:12 AM
To be a "true catholic", you cannot be a "buffet catholic"--you cannot pick and choose which bits of idiocy you feel comfortable adhering to or you will be EXCOMMUNICATED.
There's a reason many of us refer to ourselves as "recovering"--in my case, at least, it's not meant to be funny. Imagine, for example, being a 9-year old and waking in terror to see a beautiful red sunrise--to you, this means that the predictions of Our Lady of Fatima will come to fruition that day and the world will be destroyed. Or imagine licking the peanut butter and jelly from the knife you used to make your lunch sandwich for school that day, taking the communion wafer at morning mass, and living in horror that you might be hit by a car before you got to confess this mortal sin (eating or drinking ANYTHING but water 12 hours before receiving the host) and would spend eternity in HELL.
I'm so glad my 8 younger brothers and sisters were able to see through this bullshit. I probably helped them by being crazy paranoid. But I'm still recovering and suspect I always will be...
Posted by: Blondin | November 20, 2008 9:17 AM
@#70
My father was treated the same way.
He had a short-lived, arranged marriage at age 18 which lasted a few months (and was supposedly anulled). When he remarried at age 40 he had to go to a different church because the RC church refused to do it. Certain elders and members of the catholic women's league used to visit our house when my dad was at work and harangue my mother for being an adulteress. I remember hiding in the basement with my mom so they would think nobody was home and go away. They made it very clear that none of us were welcome at their church as long as my mum & dad were living in sin. A nearby Ukrainian catholic church was more forgiving and allowed us to attend though my parents were not allowed communion.
Finally, when dad was in his late 70s he heard that his first wife had died so he finally got married (by a monsignor) and had communion after almost 40 years.
Posted by: Moses | November 20, 2008 9:21 AM