Pharyngula

Posted by: Dr. J | May 30, 2009 10:35 PM

Wow, if anyone was on the fence, is there little doubt that Donahue is a huge piece of shit of a human being? If all else fails, try to light another catholic/protestant fight...

Posted by: Anon | May 30, 2009 10:35 PM

Wow. He tells a victim of rape by a priest "shut up", because the man was interrupting his whitewashing of the church's actions.

Astonishing.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | May 30, 2009 10:40 PM

What a nasty little man.

Posted by: Screechy Monkey | May 30, 2009 10:47 PM

What a vile, despicable performance.

Donahue seems to think that saying "priests raped children" is dishonest because, in his warped little mind, it means that 100% of priests committed rape. I guess his grasp of the English language is as tenuous as his grasp of morality and human decency.

Posted by: Roy | May 30, 2009 10:51 PM

Words cannot do the evil that is Donohue justice.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | May 30, 2009 10:53 PM

He's not only a nasty man, he's a particularly stupid man as well.

Posted by: Whiskeyjack | May 30, 2009 10:54 PM

That's one of the most horrifying things I've ever heard.

Posted by: Carol Blanchard | May 30, 2009 10:56 PM

Who would actually join an organization of which this man is the head?????

Posted by: Wistari | May 30, 2009 10:58 PM

Suffer the little children??? Clealy the directive followed by the church. Horrid people!

Posted by: akshelby | May 30, 2009 11:02 PM

One thing the Irish speaker leaves out is that the Catholic Brothers would leave the leather paddles out in the cold to freeze and harden the paddle.

Why does Donohue insist on trying to ignore and diminish the vileness of the report. He is horrid. I am impressed by the Irish speaker and reporter.

Posted by: scooter | May 30, 2009 11:06 PM

It is an honor to be insulted by an ass-handle like Donahue.

Posted by: Stefan | May 30, 2009 11:10 PM

I have nothing to add...except that he must be demon possessed...

Posted by: Zar | May 30, 2009 11:11 PM

Did he really just scream "SHUT UP" at a rape victim? Wow. That's infuriating. Un-be-fucking-lievable.

This bit of audio ought to be broadcast over the airwaves. All the Catholics in America ought to hear the words of this loathsome piece of shit that claims to represent them.

He calls moral outrage over sexual and physical abuse hysteria and then has a shitfit over a fucking cracker? This man deserves to be raped. He does. I don't say that about anyone usually, but damn. This man deserves to be raped. With knives.

Posted by: Geoff | May 30, 2009 11:19 PM

If I created a facebook group called "Bill Donohue is a vile and disgusting human being" would I be liable for something?

Just wondering.

Not that I actually did that.

But still....

Posted by: hyoid | May 30, 2009 11:26 PM

He reminds me of Jimmy Swaggart talking bad about prostitution. You just know, somehow, that his hands are filthy with it.

Posted by: Noadi | May 30, 2009 11:31 PM

He's had every bit of empathy he might have once had driven out of him by his dogma. Nothing matters to him but to defend the Church at all costs even when the Church itself admits the report he's criticizing is correct.

Is he really claiming anti-Catholic bias is IRELAND? Really? One of the most devoutly Catholic country in the world is out to get the Church?

Posted by: Tassie Devil | May 30, 2009 11:34 PM

Don't suppose there's a transcript somewhere?

I can't listen to this. I know that makes me a wuss, and I don't know why reading it makes stuff like this easier to handle, but hearing it somehow chews up my thought processes and makes me simultaneously want to weep and vomit.

Posted by: atomjack | May 30, 2009 11:36 PM

I'm going to go solve some differential equations to calm myself down before I go to sleep tonight. Anything to clear that Donohue filth from the reasoning part of my brain. wow.

"SHUT UP" my ass. I just hope that the rest of the world that heard this travesty of a human being and understands that the rest of us do. NOT! agree.

Posted by: Rheinhard | May 30, 2009 11:46 PM

It seems that site has been Pharyngulated... can't get to the audio file because the user's bandwidth has been exceeded. Anybody snag a copy of the mp3 they could post on a location from which it could be downloaded or torrented? This sounds like something that needs to be put up on youtube...

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 30, 2009 11:53 PM

evidently most catholics hate the man too:

http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/sipe-donohue-bozo

read the comments.

Frankly, I still can't figure out why the NY diocese still lets this man speak as if he has any authority whatsoever.

Oh, that's right, catholicism is about authoritarianism. They're entirely happy to have billy-boy as their attack terrier, regardless of what "normal" catholics think of the asswipe.

I've decided to post this in every thread on Catholicism that ends up on pharyngula, as it is the only way to really put an end to the insanity that is the catholic church:

Easy Steps to Excommunication

If you are a Catholic, even a "lapsed" one, you really should consider getting yourself excommunicated.

Otherwise, the CC still considers you a supporter.

Posted by: raven | May 30, 2009 11:55 PM

Who would actually join an organization of which this man is the head?????

The Catholic League is basically Bill Donohue, a typewriter, and an internet connection.

I think he gets some support from the RCC and some from donations.

I don't know how many catholics support him. I do know that some catholics think he is a rather slimey creature.

Posted by: itspiningforthefyords | May 31, 2009 12:04 AM

As a man and a human being, I demand proof that Donahue is a member of either catagory. My contention is that he is nothing but a Catholic.

Posted by: John Morales | May 31, 2009 12:08 AM

As others have said, it appears the site's bandwidth has been exceeded.

PS Cuttlefish, as usual, is wonderful.

Posted by: Zar | May 31, 2009 12:11 AM

Another link to the audio:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKLlxAgMO-w

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvLPLGHD_OI

Maybe if someone inappropriately fondled, beat, or spoke dirty to some inanimate objects like crackers, it would have been sufficiently evil to offend Bill Donahue.

Posted by: mike | May 31, 2009 12:21 AM

Thanks for posting this.

Posted by: emote_control | May 31, 2009 12:36 AM

@37:

I take it you don't remember when the reports of abuse in the residential schools started to leak out, and how all the Indians who survived those schools were liars and money-grubbers just after compensation money.

Posted by: Chris Doms | May 31, 2009 12:39 AM

Does anyone have a contact postal or email address for Mr Donohue?

http://skeptikiwi.com

Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | May 31, 2009 12:47 AM

raven @ # 42: The Catholic League is basically Bill Donohue, a typewriter, and an internet connection.

If only. Wikipedia:

The New York Times reported that the group had 11,000 total members when Donohue took over the Catholic League in 1993. This grew to 233,333 paid members in 1999, a figure which the League multiplies by 1.5 to account for non-paying members in the households of paying members, resulting in a League estimate of 350,000 members.[1] This 1999 estimate is the last statement about overall membership numbers that the League has made. The League's 2003 statement about membership claimed 15,000 members just in Nassau and Suffolk counties of New York. ...

Budget USD $2.69 million (fiscal year 2005)

8 million in reserve[2]

Staff 4[2]

also:

In 2006, according to its Form 990, its revenue was $16,590,333, and Donohue's salary and benefits amounted to $343,420.[2]

Posted by: JD | May 31, 2009 12:50 AM

What a tubby tard. I've always hated his hoarse and obnoxious voice. He reminds me of someone who is taking a shit through their big, fat, greasy ass and, by proxy, happens to strain their vocal apparatus beyond what it is capable of in order to assuage the agony of the constipated piles of shit being emitted through their fat ass.

Oh, and I don't like him much either.

Posted by: JackC | May 31, 2009 12:53 AM

But at least I have a computer, and not just a typewriter.

Recently heard an interview with James Patterson (reasonably prolific writer) - man doesn't even use a typewriter. Everything comes out longhand - even today.

It still happens. Somehow, it wouldn't make me wonder at all if asshat Donohue can't update.

JC

Posted by: rufustfirefly | May 31, 2009 1:03 AM

South Park didn't do that piece of shit justice. I swear, I would pay to have him raped, Deliverance style.

Posted by: Rick Schauer | May 31, 2009 1:09 AM

What's interesting is around 2:30 Donahue admits being slapped around in catholic school when he was a kid. This guy was a victim of child abuse and he thinks nothing of it! I think most of us have heard stories of nuns and priests wacking kids in catholic schools, too. WTF was happening there? It's called child abuse and it appears widespread and the center of it was the catholic church...all covered up now. And people wonder why there are atheists.....sheeet.

Posted by: scooter | May 31, 2009 1:15 AM

Some familiar shitheads are listed below

Catholic League
Board of Advisors

Brent Bozell III
Gerard Bradley
Linda Chavez
Robert Destro
Dinesh D'Souza
Deacon Keith Fournier
Laura Garcia
Robert George
Mary Ann Glendon
Dolores Grier
Alan Keyes
Stephen Krason
Lawrence Kudlow
Thomas Monaghan
Michael Novak
Kate O'Beirne
Thomas Reeves
Patrick Riley
Robert Royal
Ronald Rychlak
Russell Shaw
William Simon, Jr.
Joe Varacalli
Paul Vitz
George Weigel

Posted by: Zar | May 31, 2009 1:19 AM

Bill Donohue once spoke to Louis CK, one of my favorite comedians! It's pretty glorious. Billdo is strangely obsessed with Dakota Fanning getting raped. It is very disturbing. Enjoy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neDyIWRyiXQ

Posted by: jrock | May 31, 2009 1:23 AM

Wow...this jack-off takes douchebaggery to levels unseen since...the last time some idiot (Phelps,Coulter,O'Reilly, etc. ad nauseum)opened his/her toxic hate-filled bigoted piehole. Man, I wish I knew how to unhear something.

The good part came from the host and the man from Amnesty International absolutely handing Donanuts his ass. Numbnuts must not have the same awareness of which media stations in Europe will rip him a new one like he does in the U.S.

Posted by: emote_control | May 31, 2009 1:28 AM

@65:

No cognitive dissonance is required. As a principle, we can hold that anyone who defends or supports harm done to others must be made to go through whatever ordeal they are defending or supporting. So if you want to support torture, you must earn the right to support it by being tortured. If you want to defend rape, you must take one up the ol' pooper.

Just look at how quickly Mancow backpedalled on the torture issue once he had to put his money where his mouth was. How fast do you think Donohue would change his tune if he were sent back to boarding school with Father Stinkyfingers?

Posted by: whitebird | May 31, 2009 1:32 AM

Well, wow.

Posted by: «bønez_brigade» | May 31, 2009 1:44 AM

Atheist Media Blog has updated the "video" link and has also added a link to the audio files (in the comments). Donohue's insanity is to be found in the first file for the 29/5/2009 show, from 13m to 28m:22s.

Posted by: JohnnieCanuck | May 31, 2009 1:53 AM

@52:

I remember. Canada put about 150,000 children through these schools. I remember the counter accusations you mention, as well.

The impression I was left with was that some of the people were expressing bigotry towards the 'filthy savages' and the rest were fellow religionists denying the savage abuses committed by the filthy priests.

From that video PZ posted of Mr. O'Brian, the Church authorities are still reading from the same page in the prayer book. He too was accused of lying in order to get his hands on the Church's money.

According to an April '09 CBC online article I found, the RCC was only responsible for running about 75% of the residential schools across Canada. This was news because the pope had expressed 'sorrow' (but came short of apologising) to a delegation of First Nations representatives in a private meeting at the Vatican. Most all the rest of the churches involved have managed to make apologies.

In Canada, as in Ireland, the taxpayers are on the hook for most of the compensation money awarded. At least there have been convictions associated with the investigations in Canada. My understanding is that the Irish government has precluded any prosecutions by granting immunity in advance.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 31, 2009 2:00 AM

Madam Furie said:
"After this sorry appearance, any news outlets now booking him on their shows deserve the same vitriol now reserved for Donohue himself." I couldn't agree more. There's no point trying to argue against this piece of scum, you just need to ask the question of why the media outlet would expose the public to something like this as if its a reasonable point of view.

Posted by: Chris Tucker | May 31, 2009 2:24 AM

Listening to it right now.

Donohue is such a vile creature, words do not exist to adequately describes the depths of his self-delusion.

Posted by: Porco Dio | May 31, 2009 2:31 AM

Bill is the coolest asshat in the world.

He does even more to promote atheism that that bearded cephalopod lovin' UMM guy.

Posted by: Greta Christina | May 31, 2009 2:49 AM

#79 shoshidge: Sorry, but no. Unpleasant conditions and abuse by other students, as bad as it is, does not equal beatings and rapes regularly committed by the people in authority.

What a horrorshow. This is the moral horror of religion: the way it can twist people's ethical compasses. Because the Ultimate Arbiter is invisible and inaudible and doesn't judge until after you're dead and can't tell anyone -- and because the Invisible Arbiter in the Sky takes precedence over the actual human reality staring you in the face -- it can twist people's innate sense of right and wrong to the point where they will defend or explain away the literal, physical, institutional abuse of thousands of actual human children... and still decry putting a nail through a cracker as an unspeakable offense against all that is right and good.

I have to go take a shower now. I know it's midnight. I have to anyone.

Posted by: Porco Dio | May 31, 2009 2:56 AM

you can call Dr. William Donahue and his ass-hat friends of the Fucktard League in New York on (212) 371-3191 or if you need him urgently then call his mobile 9178381051.

tell him i say hi.

i am preparing a 900 page fax to send him on (212) 371-3394

Posted by: Oakes | May 31, 2009 3:51 AM

Normally, I'd be a nice, gentle kind of guy, and debate the issue like a person should.

But after hearing Bill Donohue defend/forgive endemic, systematic child abuse...

Fuck him. Fuck him forever and always, in the ass, with a concrete dildo. Sideways.

Posted by: Andyo | May 31, 2009 4:10 AM

Posted by: Steven Carr | May 31, 2009 2:44 AM

'Father Andrew Greeley estimated a decade ago that U.S. Catholic clergy had abused at least 120,000 minors. '

Yes, but for every 4000 abusive priests, there is one Mother Teresa.

Unless you got a BIG list of actual things that she did to improve people's lives. Right now to me it seems that filthy rich people like Bill Gates are doing more for poverty than she ever did.

Posted by: Richard Dawkins | May 31, 2009 5:05 AM

I think the Roman Catholic Church is second only to Islam among the major evils of today. I am delighted to hear that ordinations have dropped to a piteous trickle in Ireland, because I want to see the Catholic Church killed stone dead in that beautiful country. I feel real and deep anger against Roman Catholicism and against its priests and its apologists such as Bill Donohue.

Nevertheless, I think there is something a little unfair in the responses here to this particular interview with Bill Donohue. It is almost like a feeding frenzy. What he actually said surely deserves just a LITTLE serious attention?

He several times condemned child abuse, and I don't think he can be accused of condoning it. But he made two points:

1. Is there any evidence that Catholic institutions were any more guilty than Protestant, or non-religious ones, setting aside the fact that in Ireland Catholic institutions happen to be much more numerous? It is quite possible the answer is yes, Catholic institutions really were much worse, but I would at least like to know the answer to the question.

2. He said don't lump all forms of child abuse together, as though they are equally as bad as each other. He said he was cuffed by nuns as a child, in order to make the point that it really is rather different from being whipped so as to draw blood. Both happened, but one is worse than the other. And sexual abuse ranges from gentle petting to violent buggery. Both should be condemned, but one should be condemned MORE.

At the age of about nine, at my (Anglican) boarding school, a master subdued my desperate struggles, put his hand into my shorts and fondled me. He had done the same thing to many of my friends (and eventually he committed suicide). The experience was disagreeable, but it didn't ruin my life in the way that, say, a priest violently sodomizing an altar boy might. Both forms of abuse are unpleasant, but they are not EQUALLY unpleasant. That seems to me to be a point that it is at least worth considering, and it is one of the two points Donohue was trying to make.

At the same school, in the 1950s, I was beaten with a cane sufficiently hard that the bruises could be seen for weeks. Again, the same thing happened to my colleagues, and we used to show off our welts in the locker room as badges of honour. Not a pleasant experience, obviously, but again not damaging for life. I tell the story only to illustrate the point Donohue was making, which is that violent punishment was the norm at the time. I suspect that the evidence in the Ryan report (I haven't read it) will show that the Christian Brothers in Ireland (and the nuns in the girls' schools) were an order of magnitude more brutal, vicious and cruel than their equivalents in Protestant or non-denominational schools. But surely we should at least listen to what Donohue was trying to say.

I developed the point in The God Delusion that we should not allow our condemnation of physical abuse by priests to distract our attention from the other kind of abuse, the psychological abuse of bringing up a child Catholic in the first place, and especially the psychological terrorism involved in teaching them about hell. The bruises from a beating fade. The psychological trauma of a Catholic upbringing usually does not.

Posted by: Porco Dio | May 31, 2009 5:48 AM

"He said don't lump all forms of child abuse together"

Well, excuse me Mr. Dawkins.

You know as well as we all do that threatening a child with eternal damnation in a fiery hell can be as damaging as violent buggery.

No, please don't condemn one more than the other. And, puhleeeze, no need to put in a good word for Billy-Bob Donahue because we need our whipping boys, oh yes we do.

Posted by: bsk | May 31, 2009 6:18 AM

Richard, I'd need to listen to the show again to confirm, but I'm fairly sure Donohue's Irish counterpart did answer his point about the comparison between Catholic and other institutions. The Catholic abuses were worse, and since the vast majority of institutions were Catholic anyway, the point is somewhat moot. Either way, I don't think it's relevant. If there were also systemic abuses in other systems in the same time and context (I believe there weren't), I would expect him to condemn them equally, not use one to mitigate the other.

Regarding the second point, I'm also quite sure it was rebutted in the discussion. The fact that there are so many of the serious cases renders Donohue's portrayal of the media coverage dishonest and patently ridiculous. I agree that not all abuses are the same, but he was 1) playing down the lighter abuse to a sickening degree, 2) paying nothing more than very brief lip-service to the serious abuses, and 3) disingenuously accusing the media of conflating the two.

Lastly, even if he did have serious points, I think it not only fair but necessary to criticise the way in which he made them. His positions were offensive (actually offensive, as opposed to what your critics imagine you to be) to the point that it simply requires our condemnation.

I don't think anybody here has been unnecessarily uncharitable - though I would draw the line at endorsing torture (even for Donohue).

Posted by: Sigmund | May 31, 2009 6:35 AM

In response to Richard Dawkins points I agree that physical abuse was common in previous decades and that most individuals who went to school in Ireland experienced some degree of violent discipline although the Ryan report concentrated on the more serious cases rather than the average nun or christian brother giving talkative children 'six of the best'. Donohue, however, tried to insinuate that the report was almost entirely based on this latter type of 'discipline'.
As for the question of whether there is a reason or even likelihood that abuse was worse in catholic institutions I remember a particular incident in my Religious Education class in about 1980 in Ireland when one of the students brought up the subject of joining the Christian Brothers. The priest made it very clear to the entire class that he strongly recommended against such a direction. He told us that the Christian Brothers, in contrast to the seminaries, took in members at a far too early stage of development (they generally entered as very young teenagers rather than the young adults who joined the seminaries in their late teens or early twenties). It was obvious to us that he considered the Christian Brother system to be inherently abusive. The fact that Christian Brothers were brought up themselves in such an abusive system in all likelihood increased the chances that a cycle of abuse would develop. This is the major difference between the Catholic system to other religious institutions.
I guess there is some degree of similarity with the Madrassa system in places like Pakistan but I haven't seen any study on the prevalence of abuse in that system.

Posted by: Aquaria | May 31, 2009 6:56 AM

I can't watch or listen to this cracker-fellator's garbage. I've had a migraine for four days now, the bad kind, and I can't handle such crap as Donahue dumps all over the place.

#97:Long before Hitchens wrote his book, I'd been hearing about the Calcutta witch, from various nuns my mother worked with in the 70s and 80s at a Catholic hospital. Some of them had either worked with Mother Teresa or were very familiar with her "work," and had less than flattering assessments of her. They were nuns, so they didn't say anything really insulting about her, just that they hadn't agreed with her about patient care, that she had "different ideas about suffering and how to deal with it." Very abstract.

But when that Nobel rolled, around? Oh boy, the veils came off, and the nurses came out. And they were not happy. Disgusted was more like it. As one of them commented, "I think those people in Sweden confused p-e-a-c-e, the good thing, and p-i-e-c-e, as in letting people suffer as they rotted to pieces!"

My mother wasn't sure what to think, but she's not the type to check sources for stuff outside her job. I gave her Hitchens's book. She realized the nuns who'd claimed the Calcutta bitch had not been good to patients were right.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | May 31, 2009 6:58 AM

Professor Dawkins,

I went to an American Catholic boarding school in the late 1950s through the mid 1960s. I didn't undergo any type of sexual abuse but I was beaten, once quite severely, by the priests and brothers. I still have scars on my buttocks from that beating.* Was I a rebellious, problem student? No, Sir, I was not. I was studious, intelligent, quiet and introverted. As a result, I was beaten less frequently and less severely than many of the other boys.

I would agree that the psychological abuse of Catholicism is damaging (look what it did to Donohue) but the physical abuse was horrific as well. Sexual abuse certainly causes psychological damage. Donohue was trying to hand-wave all this abusive damage away. For that he merits condemnation.

*The cause of the beating was me disagreeing with Br. Louis that abortion might be justified for saving the mother's life.

Posted by: MadScientist | May 31, 2009 7:44 AM

@Aquaria #102: I remember watching a short documentary on Mother Theresa in the mid 1970's (more abuse by the catholic clergy) and as the film went on about what a wonderful person she is, I was thinking I'd never seen anything so vile since the news reels of the state of people liberated from the nazi death camps. Even then it was very obvious that she had a serious fetish with suffering and that she enjoyed having people around her suffer so that *she* could be closer to god (to hell with the people she collected). In short, she was doing her god's will and making others suffer. The film claimed that those people were outcast and suffering from various diseases, but none were given medical care, only a room to suffer in for her god's pleasure.

Posted by: Tassie Devil | May 31, 2009 8:31 AM

My godfather always said if he met a Jesuit priest he would punch him in the face and then tear him apart.

He went to a jesuit run school in the 1920s and 30s.He was the kindest, gentlest peron I have known. Once I was an adult he said enough to let me know that there was more that went on in his school than beatings.

He met a distant cousin when he was home on a week's leave from the navy in 1938. She was 16, and was being regularly raped by her uncle. My godfather was 18. He said to me once that she opened the door to him and he knew instantly that something terrible was happening to her.

They married six days later.

They had the closest, most wonderful marriage I have ever come across. They were utterly devoted to one another from the day they met until their deaths.

I like to believe that he was lucky, that they were both able to close a door on what had happened to them. But I'm not sure, and I will never know now. There will be no court cases, no reparation, no acknowledgement of wrong. The men that abused them are long dead, most of them buried in a cloud of incense and hypocrisy, honoured as faithful obedient men of god.

The scale of my anger frightens me. I never wanted to hate like this.

Posted by: Disciple of "Bob" | May 31, 2009 8:55 AM

That's truly amazing.

Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | May 31, 2009 9:44 AM

emote_control, there is a problem with that, too. If you advocate rape for the rape-apologists, and torture for the torture-advocates, then, well, you are now one of them!

And who's going to carry this out? There are practical problems with this, even if you don't give two shits about the intended victim. I'd rather not have any human being brutalised by being required to torture anyone, even that piece of scum. I'd rather not have a legal system that thinks there is any excuse for torture.

Posted by: Citizen Z | May 31, 2009 9:56 AM

Nevertheless, I think there is something a little unfair in the responses here to this particular interview with Bill Donohue. It is almost like a feeding frenzy. What he actually said surely deserves just a LITTLE serious attention?

Eh, not really. It's absurd on its face, he's objecting to news stories about a report that found Irish priests raped children being headlined "Irish priests rape children". Somehow the other abuse is being "lumped in" with rape, as though the headline should include all the details of the report.

Though I doubt Bill would approve of a headline that said "Irish priests rape children and give them inadequate heating". They shouldn't mention rape in a headline at all. They should just shut up.

What's really striking is how closely Bill's own words match those of the abusers themselves. The abuse isn't really abuse. The accusers are "gold diggers" (at 2:30). The sheer contempt for the victims, the desire to see them "shut up". Given Bill's own description of being beaten, I have to wonder if it some sort of vicious psychological circle.

Posted by: Holbach | May 31, 2009 10:26 AM

It would be so gratifying to sit down with this religious moron slime and have a no-holds-barred go at this sub-human. Anyone of us can do it and reduce this religious retard to the shit pile that he is. He should get out more and meet us, and have the worst nightmare of his life.

Posted by: Jonathan Cairns | May 31, 2009 10:47 AM

Prof Dawkins,

Regarding your first point, I don't think that whether or not Catholic instutions are worse than the others is relevant - while perhaps an interesting academic sideline, the point is surely that the Catholic institutions were responsible for these crimes and should be held to account for them. If Protestant institutions, for example, are indeed similarly bad, then this can be addressed separately (provided of course that the victims come forward, which after the digging in of heels we have seen recently from the Catholic church may be far less likely.)

Regarding your second point, I quite agree, but Donohue seemed to be using this to undermine the point of the report. There is a quote towards the end of the clip where the host says that he would consider far fewer rape charges to be sufficient to cause concern. That is the again the point - serious abuse DID happen, and the individuals concerned should be dealt with, rather than brushing off the report as causing "hysteria".

While I agree we should listen to his points rather than just flick through the thesaurus to find various synonyms of the word "vile", what concerns me far more than these two points are the hints towards a view that somehow the victims have an ulterior "POLITICAL AGENDA" against the Catholic church. They do not have some ulterior motive against the church. They were subject to varying levels of abuse and want some sort of apology for the mental trauma. To assume they are "doing it for the money", for example, (as Donohue has claimed, see the previous post on this subject) is deeply upsetting.

Posted by: Jonathan Cairns | May 31, 2009 10:51 AM

My apologies. In post #118 I incorrectly attributed the quote "you're in it for the money" to Donohue. This is false - it was Rosminians.

Posted by: Multiverse | May 31, 2009 10:55 AM

Apparently Mr. Donohue pays no mind to what he sees in the mirror. His argument reflects the typical theist tactic of revising the facts.

Posted by: RamblinDude | May 31, 2009 11:03 AM

Wow, Donahue refuses to concede that the comprehensiveness of the report was not to magnify the problem, but to show the extent of it. He accuses others of belittling and diminishing the seriousness of what he would call actual sexual and physical abuse when he himself is the one doing that.

Classic delusion and a prime example of the vicious cycle of psychological abuse that is religion (as Richard Dawkins points out). The abused becomes the abuser. Shine a bright light on it.

Posted by: Spiro Keat | May 31, 2009 11:28 AM

Hey you guys, lay off Donohue!

The little fat sweaty guy has done more to highlight the evil cesspit that is the RC church and by association all the Abrahamic death cults in ONE interview, than Dawkins, Myers et al have done in a year of multi media publications.

GO DONOHUE!!

Posted by: Kseniya | May 31, 2009 11:59 AM

Hear, hear, PZ. We all should know what the antidote to offensive speech is, and it's not threats of violence or "an eye for an eye" biblical justice.

Posted by: Walton | May 31, 2009 12:08 PM

As far as I can see, the root of the problem is that, in the era when most of these crimes took place, there was a culture of "discipline" and "respect for authority"; it seems to have been considered OK to beat children to a pulp in order to force them to accept the system. And, of course, sexual abuse and other forms of institutional corruption and evil were much easier to cover up. As we've seen from many of the stories above, both beatings and sexual abuse were common in many schools around the world (from English public schools, to the US and Canadian "residential schools" for Native Americans, to continental Europe, to Australia).

Of course, one of the major problems in Ireland has been that the Catholic Church has had a stranglehold on society and an unchallenged dominance in religious life, like the Mormons in Utah. And, as someone observed above, absolute power corrupts absolutely. This is more evidence for why a strong separation of church and state, and a guarantee of individual religious freedom, is absolutely essential in any society, however homogeneous.

I am immensely thankful that I have grown up in an era where the rights of the weak are protected; where authority can be questioned and where "discipline" is not paramount. The horrific abuses we've been hearing about must never be allowed to happen again.

Posted by: Emmet, OM | May 31, 2009 1:04 PM

First: three cheers for Colm O'Gorman — total pwnage. I'm in awe of his self-control and articulate demolition of Bildo.

Second, Bildo's point that the majority of abusers were not priests is strictly true, but a complete red herring — the majority were “brothers” in Catholic religious orders, so not technically priests, but still Catholic religious.

Third: someone referred to Colm O'Gorman as “Donohue's Irish counterpart” when nothing could be further from the truth. Colm O'Gorman is a childhood clerical rape victim, the founder of One in Four, a support and advocacy group for abuse victims, a former senator, and the current executive director of Amnesty International in Ireland. He is, in no way shape or form, an “Irish counterpart” of Bildo.

Finally: Colm O'Gorman made it quite clear that the abuse in Ireland was much worse than it was in the UK at the same time — Ireland essentially continued with Victorian workhouses under Church management until the 1970's, while the UK reformed them in the 1920's — and (IIRC) it has been established that the situation in Catholic institutions was considerably worse than in Protestant (mostly CofI Anglican) institutions in Ireland at the same time, which lays to rest a couple of Richard's points.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | May 31, 2009 2:09 PM

Rob @ 135

The context of this post and of the video is implying something to the effect that "theistic thinking increases the likelihood of sexual and physical abuse of minors." So, then, may I assume, based on Stalin's Soviet Union, that "atheistic thinking increases the likelihood of mass murder?"

Ummm... WTF???

The context of this post implies nothing of the sort unless your are an absolute lunatic.

All you did was invent a faulty premise from which you could launch another faulty anti-atheistic argument.

Result: You're in idiot.

Posted by: Rob | May 31, 2009 2:15 PM

Right. There's no aspect in either the site to which one is directed by the link nor in the responses of "see what that pernicious theistic thinking can lead to." Sure.

I'd hate to think that you're so involved in it that you're blind to it.

I don't think atheistic thinking leads to mass murder any more than I think that theistic thinking leads to child abuse.

But if you can't detect the smug, "we're better than them, look what their kind of thinking leads to," arrogance here then I'd suggest you reevaluate your ability to be objective.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | May 31, 2009 2:21 PM

Rob - OK, I'll bite, just what part of the holy babble or the koran forbids child abuse? I have a copy of both right here on my desk. Go for it, enlighten me.

Posted by: rrt | May 31, 2009 2:22 PM

I second Jonathan Cairns @ #118. Donohue's points are technically valid but mostly irrelevant and are being used as red herrings. And what he's really trying to claim is that this is just another part of a global anti-catholic conspiracy. He quite honestly sees the world through that filter--EVERYTHING that does not put his Church in the best possible light is trying to tear it down.

It seems obvious but I really do think this is worth pointing out, because I haven't seen nearly anyone noting this: In that interview, Donohue wasn't just trying to downplay the severity of the abuse. He was also trying very, very hard to insinuate that the media were beating up on the church by only making the rape by priests the headline, and the focus of the news story. I think that was his primary point, in fact. In Donohue's world, the media aren't leading with the attention-grabber, they're not practicing sensationalism...it's not, in other words, pretty much standard journalism catering to human interests. No, it's a deliberate effort to attack the church, just another example of the massive, evil (demonic?) anti-catholic conspiracy. He honestly thinks that in a world without his (paranoid delusional) conspiracy, the papers would have written headlines like "Catholic institutions might have abused no more children than any others, and only relatively few children were actually raped by priests, and some of them (quite a lot, really, we suspect) are probably golddiggers."

Richard: This whole thing is terrible, but you know what else disgusts me? That an awful lot of your critics believe you aren't capable of statements like yours at #94. They'd like to paint you as the atheist Bill Donohue, but the contrast between you couldn't be more obvious. And they don't care to see it.

And to all: I second PZ's denunciation of violent talk. No good can come of it.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | May 31, 2009 2:25 PM

OK, Rob the slimy troll...

First of all... you're here to tell me that after listening to that interview, THIS is your actual concern? THIS is what troubles you? Really? Then I have to tell you, you sound as bad as Donohue, frankly.

And second of all, if you actually LISTENED to the interview, you would hear quite plainly that the interviewer goes out of his way to point out that the catholic church of Ireland has in fact admitted to these offenses and is greatly disturbed and apologetic. The very point was to show that Donohue apparently stands alone in his position, far from any endorsed by the catholic church. No... this interview makes no attempt, implied or otherwise, at equating theism with the acts discussed. Not even a little. This was about Donohue. Period. As is this post.

Based on your comment, I really doubt you listened to the interview much if at all, or you would have never made such a monumentally stupid statement.

As I said before, all you are interested in doing is inventing a platform from which to launch an attack. And given the nature of the topic, I'd say that's pretty fucking disturbing. So kindly fuck off, troll.

Posted by: Rob | May 31, 2009 2:30 PM

I'm really kind of amazed. I haven't even stated whether I'm of the theist or atheist persuasion. I've brought up, in my opinion, valid points of discussion.

I've been called an idiot and a troll. So now "troll" means anyone not following the party line. Did I say "Donahue is right?" No. Did I indicate the slightest acceptance of his minimization of abuse? No.

Is this an echo chamber or is discussion, including challenges, encouraged? If the former, I'll leave y'all to your party and c ya!

Posted by: Rob | May 31, 2009 2:38 PM

Oops, I hit "Post" too soon. Now I'm a "slimy troll."

For the record, I listened to the interview in its entirety. Again, I have no sympathy for the abuse that took place nor for Donohue's attempt to minimize it.

Nor do I have sympathy for the self-congratulatory smugness and arrogance exhibited here. But if anyone can't detect the "that would never have happened were it not for their deluded theistic thinking" subtext, with it's implication of "our superior atheistic community could never engage in such behavior, precisely because we're superior atheists" then some serious self-examination is in order.

But clearly, the answer to my previous question is that it is an echo chamber, so, ....

I'm outro.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 31, 2009 3:11 PM

But if anyone can't detect the "that would never have happened were it not for their deluded theistic thinking" subtext, with it's implication of "our superior atheistic community could never engage in such behavior, precisely because we're superior atheists" then some serious self-examination is in order.

Self-examination is always in order, but you are labouring under several delusions, two of which you have conveniently put in quotes for us. In fact, nobody suggested anything of the kind you insinuate.

One point here is that an institution that does claim moral superiority — that's its very business — not only ignored, but aids and abets heinous crimes against children to this very day to protect its own reputation.

Another is that any international secular organisation with such a record would be broken up by a special InterPol task-force set up to infiltrate and destroy it. Why is this religious group exempt?

Third, there is no structured “atheistic community” that has, or could, do such a thing, not because atheists are inherently morally superior to theists, but because there is no doctrine that binds us together, nor hierarchy to lead us — analogising atheists, who are a community only in the sense that we share a single common disbelief, and the Roman Catholic Church is frankly quite stupid — “atheism” is not an organisation. I will immediately leave, repudiate, and unequivocally condemn any actual organisation that I'm a member of the second it protects a rapist or a child-molester. Why haven't the huge majority of Catholics done the same?

Finally, you can't blame us for thinking you a duck if you quack and waddle and have webbed feet and feathers.

Posted by: Uncle Glenny | May 31, 2009 3:45 PM

Oh well if Rob has stomped off I returned too late, but with the Stalin/Atheism couplet brought up again, here's a (not very developed) post from just yesterday on growing up in Atheistic USSR:

http://worldofweirdthings.com/2009/05/30/atheism-behind-the-iron-curtain/

Posted by: Zetetic | May 31, 2009 4:11 PM

Quite the straw man you've got there Rob...

Posted by: karen | May 31, 2009 4:29 PM

@Richard #94,

Both happened, but one is worse than the other. And sexual abuse ranges from gentle petting to violent buggery. Both should be condemned, but one should be condemned MORE.

As a survivor of repeated rape, "lesser" molestation, torture and emotional abuse up to the age of 5, I can attest to the toll of devastating consequences. My abuser was not a clergy person, but my own very religious protestant grandfather who incorporated religion into the abuse. Over the years of therapy I've had as an adult, I've been involved with many other women, and a few men, who were all abused to a "lesser" degree than I, some "only" being fondled in similar ways to what you describe in your own experience. All of these people were dramatically effected by their own personal traumas. Some I met in outpatient group therapy, some were inpatient in the psych ward with me when we were all suicidal. Some had had only one experience, and some had been repeatedly abused. When listening to their stories, I don't recall ever thinking, "That's not so bad; at least they didn't get what I got." What I felt was anger at their abusers and the people who neglected to help them, empathy for what they endured and continued to endure, and compassion for them because they were clearly in deep trauma over it still.

I am sorry that you had the experience you did, and equally happy for you that you were able to overcome it. I think a lot of how a trauma effects an individual is based on how old the abused is, the relationship to the abuser, the circumstances of the abuse itself, if there was an outcry to anyone, (and if any intervention followed an outcry, or if the abused was not believed), and yes, the degree of and number of instances of abuse. And some other factors, but I'm getting lengthy. It may all boil down to just how helpless and powerless the victim feels and how much guilt s/he is made to assume. Remember that these abuses are about power, above all.

So, while I see what you are saying, I have to disagree. All degrees of abuse must be condemned, and strongly. When someone describes an incident as you did, and adds, "Not a pleasant experience, obviously, but again not damaging for life.", can you imagine how that makes a person feel who may have had a similar experience, yet HAS been damaged goods ever since? It plays into the "Oh, just get over it" mentality that many abuse victims encounter. I'm not saying you are inferring that, but each psyche is different, and circumstance makes some more fragile than others.

Bill Donohoe, OTOH, shows a complete lack of compassion and understanding about abuse. He's comparing an act of discipline to acts that through demeaning self-image and instilling constant fear establish power and authority. I grew up with corporal punishment in the schools and at home, and am familiar with the difference between the two concepts. Donohoe's statements about this issue arouse a rage in me that I don't like to acknowledge. But you are a reasonable man, and I hope you will reconsider your opinion about the levels of abuse and how you view them.

Posted by: Matt H. | May 31, 2009 5:08 PM

When Donahue told Hitchens to shut up, it was stupid but rather comical at the same time. Here, when it is directed at a rape victim, it is evil. When asked to name some of the worst examples of humanity living today, I'll always put Donahue on my list.

Posted by: No More Mr. Nice Guy! | May 31, 2009 7:06 PM

"Christ rode on an ass, but now asses ride on Christ" - Heinrich Heine

Fuck O'Donohue and the Christ he rode in on.

Posted by: Azkyroth | May 31, 2009 9:00 PM

The context of this post and of the video is implying something to the effect that "theistic thinking increases the likelihood of sexual and physical abuse of minors."

So, then, may I assume, based on Stalin's Soviet Union, that "atheistic thinking increases the likelihood of mass murder?"

Authoritarian thinking increases the likelihood of human-rights abuses in general. In fact, if entrenched in any systematic way it basically guarantees them. Religions like Catholicism and religions-in-all-but-name like Communism encourage authoritarian thinking. Humanism and freethought do not.

Try again, dipshit?

Posted by: Everbleed | May 31, 2009 10:26 PM

Don Ho admits to having been beaten by nuns as a child. Well hot damn! He is the freakin' living proof of the effect.

Sometimes I wince just a bit when PZ loads up on the hyperbole, but this time I actually listened to the whole damn tape and found my blood pressure up and my ire up as well.

Prior comments about Bill D by PZ have inspired me to gently question some of my Catholic acquaintances and they duck and cover. I dare not push. They know not what they endorse and are afraid of finding out.

PZ is dead on. This spokesmonster for the church is a bad and stupid man. Rest assured he will be getting an award for something in the next month and will be greeted with applause at the next meeting he attends.

What a crazy world.

Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter | June 1, 2009 12:00 AM

I find it particularly offensive to have Donohue say that the abuse was "normal" for that time or that "other institutions" were doing the same things. Is not the point that the Catholic Church (as do all churches) lays claim to being superior to other institutions and, indeed, should be granted the role of moral arbitrator for everyone in society, even those who have chosen NOT to walk through their doors and accept their authority? Do Churches not claim they have higher moral standards than the rest of society?
Secular organizations & secular laws have existed for over 100 years to protect children from this kind of abuse from their own parents - but the Catholic Church didn't get the memo?

Michael O'Brien, the former mayor of Clonmel, was removed from his father's custody and sent to one of these "workhouses" (where he was raped at the age of 10(?)), along with his 7 brothers & sisters, after his mother died of pneumonia. Because they were poor, the authorities didn't think his father could adequately care for them.

Now think about this - the secular state had a standard of good care they thought his own father was not able to meet due to poverty - but the Church was not aware that THEY had standards of adequate care that they had to meet in caring for children given over to them.

Obviously the standards weren't created by the Catholic (or any other major Church) but by other, predominately secular groups. The Church(es) followed the moral lead of others - and did so at a very slow pace.

It seems that time & time again, secular beliefs have taken the moral lead and public opinion has influenced Church goers who then drag their Churches kicking and screaming into more progressive principles.

Posted by: Azkyroth | June 1, 2009 12:41 AM

Obviously the standards weren't created by the Catholic (or any other major Church) but by other, predominately secular groups. The Church(es) followed the moral lead of others - and did so at a very slow pace.

The Churches, generally speaking, have never followed a moral lead - though they have, on occasion, been dragged along, kicking and screaming, behind it.

Posted by: Anonymous Coward | June 1, 2009 3:07 AM

Richard, I think you fail to make the distinction between the words people use and what they actually say. As a scientist, for whom honesty and the proper use of words are important, you can be excused for missing that; I myself (a student) didn't see such things until very recently precisely because of that. There are some ways in which a discrepancy can occur. In Bill Donohue's case these were mainly a) using words apparently with a non-standard definition, which isn't made explicit and b) by letting the fullness of what he said, and the consequences thereof, imply something utterly beyond from the individual sentences. Yes, he may have said, if we snip out an appropriate sentence and use our definitions of words, that he doesn't condone abuse. However, when we take it all in context and listen to the full interview, Bill Donohue loudly says that abuse is okay, that he condones rape, that the inquest was made because of hatred for catholics rather than because something was wrong, that in any case it was normal and that the victims need suck it up and keep quiet. Now that is something which I cannot accept. I cannot say in all honesty that he deserves serious attention beyond scorn and loathing, nor can I sweep it away by saying ‘but this part wasn't so bad’.

Posted by: JBlilie | June 1, 2009 8:58 AM

Donohue is a truly vile human being and can't perform basic grammatical logic or perhaps English. His harping on the Reuters story headline (which was a simple statement of fact, as emphasized over and over by the guest/victim) beggars the imagination.

Listing to him was an unreal experience. How can someone be so detached from reality? This nit wit thinks he can do the Rush Limbaugh / Billo strut and shout down people who are eviscerating the garbage he presented as an argument. What an ugly, pathetic picture he provided to the Irish of an American "person of responsibility."

How can TCL retain this shite after a performance like that?!?!? He's supposed to to be a spokesperson! Is this the image TCL wants to present to the world? Maybe ...

Posted by: Eamon | June 2, 2009 5:17 AM

Donohue actually agrees in the second part of the discussion that the use of the leather is wrong - yet it was in widespread use up until the mid-80s. Virtually any boy attending a Christian Brothers school got the leather!

If rape is wrong, the leather is wrong, but fondling and voyeurism is ok I seriously think Bill Dohohue should be checked into an asylum!

And Colm O'Gorman certainly has the patience of a saint to talk and listen to such a man for a quarter of an hour!

Posted by: Angel | June 2, 2009 1:41 PM

Listening to this has been hard for me. In part, because I was raised Catholic (mercifully no one did any "funny" business to me), and though I have long left the church behind to be secular in my outlook, when it is so indoctrinated into you, some of it stays. That the church is able to do such evil and then try to hide it or dismiss it is simply enraging. Two, I did read through the Irish report (and have read about what happened in Boston as well). I am a librarian. I hear there are sources, I look it up. The gross injustice and criminal nature of this is simply outrageous. But I have been blogging about it, and I am very glad that you are exposing it, because this needs the widest exposure possible. At the end of the day, someone has to hold them accountable.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 2, 2009 9:36 PM

without looking, can anyone tell me what % of SCOTUS were Catholic during Roe V Wade?

100% Evil

Posted by: Alvin | January 3, 2010 10:21 AM

vn ths wh hv chsn NOT t wlk thrgh thr drs nd ccpt thr thrty?