No surprise that the man has no problem with Wuerl's lavish lifestyle. He has his own personal "charity" to feather his nest. How many of those contributing to the Catholic League make anywhere near that kind of moolah?
I used to support the Catholic League when it was run by its founder Fr. Virgil Blum, S.J. who was president from 1973 until 1989. Where did he live? In a room at Marquette University. Then Bill moved the Catholic League to New York City and started promoting himself. The kicker for me came when I saw him in a "debate" about abortion browbeating and yelling at an attractive pro-abort woman. My reaction? He should have found the prettiest young pro-life woman in town, maybe on his own staff, someone like Lila Rose to go on the TV show. But that would have deprived him of a moment in the "sun" under the TV lights.
No, I don't support the Catholic League. I have better things to do with my money -- like defend Aden Hailu and other vulnerable individuals in danger of murder by the culture of death. In fact, I hope you boycotted the CCHD (Catholic Campaign for Human Development) collection today. Why not use that money instead at Aden's page and put a donation in the "basket" to help her family get her moved to a safe location. Her story is getting more and more typical around the country as U.S. medicine is transformed from patient oriented to cost/benefit oriented.
Now wouldn't it be nice if some of those big bucks Bill is collecting went for that?
Think about it. How much is your life worth? A lot to you and your family; not so much to the number crunchers who would rather kill you than treat you. As for Bill Donohue...well....
Fabulous post, Tom McFadden, Sr.
ReplyDeleteAgreed. He is a loud mouthed whiner. The world and the Church has passed him by.
ReplyDeleteI always supported the Catholic League, if not monetarily, in spirit. God knows we need a champion to bring to people's attention the many ways Catholicism is treated so poorly.
ReplyDeleteBut something has changed. I still can't understand why Cardinal Dolan is ignored by the Catholic League. His actions regarding the St. Patrick day parade and the gay issue in general is disturbing, but, not much is said by the Catholic League. They blame everybody else but him, and he's the one who said "bravo!" and acted as Grand Marshall. Scandalous.
His criticism of CM is unwarranted. Cardinal Wuerhl is a terrible liberal. We all know that. I don't know if the criticisms of his lavish lifestyle are correct, but if they are, it's good for someone to point it out.
Today, it is getting harder and harder to know friend from foe.
I come to your house to visit and I decide your carpet it too plush, your artwork too exquisite, your furniture too trendy, your neighborhood too upscale. LAVISH: the new Deadly Sin! Worse yet, your car is not a Prius, you evil monster!
ReplyDeleteWho am I too judge how you live or how any Cardinal lives or even the Pope? It is none of our business.
These are not elected officials supported by our tax dollars. It is not our money, it is the Church's money and if the tradition is for a Prince to live in a nice home, why the heck not? This is Americanism at its worst and fully unjustified.
Do we want these men living in run-down areas in a walk-up flat, maybe even a few rats crawling in the hallways? Would you live that way? If yes, goodie for you but you have no right to choose for your superiors. Yes all is not equal in life!
Must everything devolve to the most plebian and banal level? Like a Soviet apartment bloc of cement? Should we all just live in hovels to prove how holy and humble we are?
Does anyone have some superiority to you? YES! In the Church hierarchy a Cardinal gets housing in keeping with his position. To object is the epitome of childish whining over another kid having a nicer toy.
You folks are the first to criticize wreckovations or no domes or no statues or no latin hymns... and rightly so! Why do you turn leftist revolutionary when it happens to be a Cardinal you may not particularly like? I am no fan of Cardinal Wuerl, but this petty and jealous finger pointing... It is vanity and aggression under the pretense of righteousness.
"It is not our money, it is the Church's money..."
ReplyDeleteAre you serious? Where does the Church get any money (besides the millions it gets from government grants that silences it on serious moral issues)? It comes from people in the pews -- including the widow's mite.
I'm not jealous of Wuerl. On the contrary, I feel sorry for him. He puts human respect and the almighty dollar ahead of respect for the Almighty.
As for the lavish lifestyle being none of our business...I'm just imitating the pope who has been very hard on the Bishop of Bling. Unfortunately, some blingers are more acceptable to him than others.
I couldn't help but take a peek at Donohue's form 990 myself -- His salary is about $500,000 now!
ReplyDeleteIone
It's nice to have Mr. Donohue available to stick up for the Church when its under attack by the secular media. However, when he starts dividing Catholics by referring to those who care about the Church as "right wing nuts", one can't help but wonder just who he is working for. This has about as much credibility as attacking all of Obama's critics as racist. It's not only deceitful, but it's also getting quite old. Give it a rest, Bill.
ReplyDeleteI wrote off Donohue last January when, before the massacred bodies in the Charlie Hebdo offices were even cold, he posted a piece on the CL site titled "Muslims are right to be angry." (It's still up on the website -- you can look it up.)
ReplyDeleteI'm no defender of Charlie Hebdo -- indeed, I think it's a disgusting publication. (I'm told it's part of a long tradition in French satirical humor that a foreigner wouldn't understand. Fine. But I'm an American, and I think Charlie Hebdo is disgusting.) That said, there was no excuse for Donohue seeming to justify (despite his perfunctory denunciation of mass murder at the beginning of the piece) the acts of the Islamist mass-murderers -- at least of their motives.
Did you hear Hugh Hewitt's blistering interview with Donohue the next day? It was riveting radio. Donohue sounded like a jackass, trying to defend himself.
As long as he in in charge, I won't give the Catholic League a dime.
I can't help but notice that Donohue completely ignored Neumayr's main point, which was, to paraphrase, "what's up with all the open-borders propaganda at the Washington English Center, at the Parish, on the levels below the Cardinal's penthouse?" Donohue doesn't dispute the open-borders propaganda; he takes pot shots at all sorts of other issues, and people, but dodges the big question. Seems as though Neumayr has hit a nerve.
ReplyDeleteDear Mr. Donohue:
ReplyDeleteYou have publicly stumbled (I hope it was an unwitting stumble) into endorsing, quite explicitly, a mortal sin.
The mortal sin in question is: giving Communion to a person who is obstinately persisting in manifest grave sin. It is a grave sin of scandal because whenever a minister of Communion gives such a person Communion, he: 1) publicly collaborates, with knowledge, in the commission of a sacrilege; 2) gives public approval to the communicant's notorious grave sin.
You are, of course, aware that these are the precise reasons the Church has always required Denial of Communion to persons living publicly in a state of adultery.
The principle involved applies equally without any regard to the SPECIES of the sin that the would-be communicant is involved in.
Your blunder is in thinking that the moral principle demanding Denial of Communion has some specific connection with the Sacrament of Matrimony. I.e., the divorced-and-remarried.
This is a bit of nonsense that the majority of American bishops have promoted, by approving the document "Catholics in Political Life," in which it is said that a bishop may "legitimately" give Communion to pro-abortion politicians. I.e., the bishops said (and say) that the moral principles that MANDATE Denial of Communion to the divorced-and-remarried do not mandate Denial of Communion to public promoters of abortion.
Cardinal Wuerl's many statements on this subject have been nothing but a concatenation of lies. (In the case of a Cardinal of the Catholic Church, one cannot attribute them to ignorance.)
A partial list:
He has persistently outlined the demands of Canon 916, and pretended he is talking about Canon 915. I.e., he has persistently pretended that ONLY the would-be Communicant has anything to say about whether he will receive Communion. (Of course, the Cardinal is secure in the knowledge that Joe Lunchpail and Sally Housecoat are not familiar with the texts of Canons 915 and 916.)
++++++++++++
He has persistently claimed that Denial of Communion is unjust unless the minister of Communion knows the "state of the soul" of the would-be communicant.
Since this is metaphysically impossible...well, you can finish this sentence.
++++++++++++
Cardinal Wuerl has declared that he will never deny Communion to anyone other than an excommunicate. (And even then...only after lots and lots of "dialogue.")
Cardinal Wuerl has never offered a scintilla of explanation as to why Canon 915 MAY be obeyed in the case of excommunicates, but MUST NOT be obeyed in the case of persons who are "obstinately persisting in manifest grave sin."
CONTINUED
ReplyDeleteCardinal Wuerl has declared that he will never deny Communion to anyone other than an excommunicate. (And even then...only after lots and lots of "dialogue.")
Cardinal Wuerl has never offered a scintilla of explanation as to why Canon 915 MAY be obeyed in the case of excommunicates, but MUST NOT be obeyed in the case of persons who are "obstinately persisting in manifest grave sin."
++++++++++++
Cardinal Wuerl claimed several years ago that, before he would consider obeying Canon 915, it was necessary to find out whether the canon was written for the precise purpose of "bringing politicians to heel."
The Cardinal had to know that NO canon was written for that precise purpose, ergo...you can finish this sentence, also.
++++++++++++
He persistently calls Denial of Communion a "penalty."
It is not a penalty. Canon 915 is not a penal canon. It does not offer Denial of Communion as a penalty that a bishop MAY apply. It MANDATES Denial of Communion for the simplest of all possible reasons: Giving Communion to excommunicates and those obstinately persisting in manifest grave sin is always a mortal sin.
The reason for falsely calling Denial of Communion a "penalty" is to support the false claim that it is something that a bishop MAY "impose," but Cardinal Wuerl chooses not to "impose," for assorted "pastoral" reasons, such as "leading" pro-abortion politicians into closer union with Christ and the Church. When asked not long ago in an interview to name a pro-abortion politician who had become pro-life as a result of receiving Communion sacrilegiously in tandem with "dialogue" with Cardinal Wuerl, he could not name one. (It has been more than 43 years since the platform of "the natural home of Catholics" endorsed abortion, and nearly 43 years since Roe v. Wade.)
++++++++++++
You have parroted Cardinal Wuerl's caricature of Denial of Communion as "using the Eucharist as a weapon" with which to "smack" pro-abortion politicians.
Well, then, you therefore accuse Pope St. John Paul II of "using the Eucharist as a weapon," with which to "smack" the divorced-and-remarried--in a Magisterial document! (Familiaris Consortio.)
I hope I need hardly elaborate on the grave scandal that is given, and the strict, grave obligation to correct it, when the President of the Catholic League has publicly, in writing, endorsed the commission of mortal sin.
Sincerely,
Rev. Vincent Fitzpatrick
The Catholic League has not done much since Donohue took over anyways. Just silence. I thought they went out of business they've been so quiet until this past weekend.
ReplyDeleteWow Maryanne ,Bill got a super nice raise from the last time I checked. A year or so ago he was only making a measly three hundred thou something!
ReplyDeleteDonahue really stirred my ire when he wrote off the young pederast victims of clerical abuse in the Irish work houses as being delinquents anyway.
So many of these now elderly Irish were placed in these so called "religious" institutions simply because their mothers were either desperately poor and or abandoned by the fathers of their babes. The Vatican apologized to them for their plight while Donahue smeared them in print.
Satan is the Father of lies but apparently pays well.........in this life anyway.
No one else defends Holy Mother Church in the media like he does. He is on constant patrol for the ways the media, Hollywood, academia and our government ambushes the Church. Can you imagine the scrutiny he's always under? Every word he says picked apart by the MSM? And the physical threats he receives? The spiritual attacks? He's in the laity, took no vow of poverty that I know of...
ReplyDeleteWhy on earth he would be a target of your attack is beyond me. He is not the enemy. My God, he is not the enemy.
Attack?
ReplyDeleteDid you read what Donohue said about "crazies" and "right wing nut jobs?"
I think you're talking to the wrong person.
LuLu ,if your God is the same as my God ,Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, He had something quite profound to say against the likes of Mr Donahue who would dare to condemn the abused and sexually molested children ,now either dead or elderly who suffered all their lives due to the spiritual ,physical and psychological abuse they suffered at the hands of false religious in the Irish workhouses aka poor houses for the destitute. Mr Donahue had the audacity to label them all "delinquents",as if they deserved to be sodomized raped and beaten!
ReplyDeleteIf that is what YOU think is defense of the Church we belong to a different Faith! Oe apparently you missed that despicable rant he put to print?