U of Minn sticks it to Catholics

[Dilexisti]

I repeat my earlier suggestion.  If you believe a response is requied: go, see the play, attend the forum, participate, criticize.

Why would that kind of response you suggest be the solution?  These people are beyond decency, beyond right thinking, are tools used by Satan.  While the Donohues and the TFCs and others do their work, we can in our own way:  what would appease Our Lord more than to do reparation?  A Holy Hour in front of the Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament will do more to repair the injustice and blasphemy than arguing with reprobates? Offer holy Communions and Rosaries in reparation.

[mojomama]

I already said what I thought would be an appropriate response.  For that, I got a series of ad hominem attacks.  Yet no one has demonstrated that my proposal would be wrong, other than to attack my friends, people of good will whom none of you have met, but whose views, motives and state of grace your presume to intuit, and to announce the presumptive damnation of someone, I'm not sure who, or perhaps everyone, connected with a particular production, including, apparently, the entire University of Minnesota.  Now that's rational discourse.

[Quo_Vadis_Petre]

Last time I checked, nobody attacked you, mojomama. They only attacked your views of Donahue. It's a stretch to claim ad hominem.

[mojomama]

Maybe it's because what he says touches a nerve of guilt.   They couldn't define "hypocrisy" or "bigotry" if their lives depended on it.  They live an irony.

Somehow, I have a hard time believing that.   If all it takes is to state that homosexual acts are sinful in order to be labeled "hateful," then I doubt that anything the Catholic League did would please them.

Donahue isn't politically correct, which is why a lot of people who are oh so sensitive don't like him.

you'd rather stand up for blasphemers and vilify a fellow  Catholic and care more about what your friends think than stand up for the Church. Sad.

What ARE you doing about it, other than bashing a fellow Catholic for personal reasons?

It's Lent.  Time again to sell Our Lord for 30 pieces of silver (how much in today's inflated dollars?).  The Judases are out in force and here we are forming a circle taking aim to shoot at each other.

Yes, "there are a lot of people who think that Catholics are small-minded, nasty people."  
 
 They are the people who say we shouldn't call anything a sin lest we hurt someone's feelings.
 

I call 'em as I see 'em QVP.  Actually, you appear to be the only person on this thread who actually understood my point about Donohue.  What I see here is personal attacks on me and on those who are turned off by Donohue.  

And as for

But why would a derogatory statement, either meant sarcastically or literally, about Martin Luther King Jr. equate with hatred towards black people?

the answer, Fluffy, is, for the exact same reason that a derogatory statement about Pius X would be read as equating with hatred towards Catholics.

[DominusTecum]

About Donahue: His style is not my style, and I wouldn't let kids listen to it, (But I wouldn't let kids watch television period, so it's a moot point) but I do think that he's fulfilling an important role "playing with the big boys" out in the world, and if he can give them some common sense, good on him. He's said nothing that ought to scandalize anyone with an infintestimally thick skin, and getting the point across that Catholicism can't be bashed with impunity is a positive thing.

 

Our world is a very corrupt place these days, and a quotation from General Patton comes to mind: "Give it to them loud and dirty, and that way, they'll understand." Granted, it's not applicable all the time, but when one is dealing with the people whom Donahue deals with, I think it's sound advice.

 

I already said what I thought would be an appropriate response.  For that, I got a series of ad hominem attacks.  Yet no one has demonstrated that my proposal would be wrong, other than to attack my friends, people of good will whom none of you have met, but whose views, motives and state of grace your presume to intuit, and to announce the presumptive damnation of someone, I'm not sure who, or perhaps everyone, connected with a particular production, including, apparently, the entire University of Minnesota.  Now that's rational discourse.

 

I really don't think you've been attacked People have pointed out, though, that it's impossible to dialogue with the devil, and that one doesn't need to eat garbage to understand that it's bad for you and denounce those who ingest it. As for your friends, I've read this thread through and I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to, unless perchance you mean those who think that Catholics are small-minded, bigoted, etc. I'm sorry that your friends think that, but there's not much we can do about it. If they looked at the situation from an objective standpoint, and saw all the nastiness that Catholicism is subjected to from the mass media and the leading personalities of the world on a daily basis, perhaps Donahue would not seem so crazy to them. It's an amazing situation when Abe Foxman's spiels are seen as "enlightened, righteous, and just self-defense," while the same people see Donahue as a backward and "intolerant" bigot. I think that they'd see any serious Catholic in the same light.

[Quo_Vadis_Petre]

Maybe it's because what he says touches a nerve of guilt.   They couldn't define "hypocrisy" or "bigotry" if their lives depended on it.  They live an irony.

Somehow, I have a hard time believing that.   If all it takes is to state that homosexual acts are sinful in order to be labeled "hateful," then I doubt that anything the Catholic League did would please them.

Donahue isn't politically correct, which is why a lot of people who are oh so sensitive don't like him.

you'd rather stand up for blasphemers and vilify a fellow  Catholic and care more about what your friends think than stand up for the Church. Sad.

What ARE you doing about it, other than bashing a fellow Catholic for personal reasons?

It's Lent.  Time again to sell Our Lord for 30 pieces of silver (how much in today's inflated dollars?).  The Judases are out in force and here we are forming a circle taking aim to shoot at each other.

Yes, "there are a lot of people who think that Catholics are small-minded, nasty people."  
 
 They are the people who say we shouldn't call anything a sin lest we hurt someone's feelings.
 

I call 'em as I see 'em QVP.  Actually, you appear to be the only person on this thread who actually understood my point about Donohue.  What I see here is personal attacks on me and on those who are turned off by Donohue.

Well, I do see your point: namely, that if Donahue were more restrained and reserved in his language, then you wouldn't have a problem with him. If only he spoke similarly to St. Pius V, who didn't mince words but also acted in keeping with his dignity.

Still, I don't see exactly everyone of these comments as exactly ad hominem. And I think you're unfairly picking on a few of his comments, even if they weren't exactly appropriate to talk about.

[DominusTecum]

And as for

Quote:

But why would a derogatory statement, either meant sarcastically or literally, about Martin Luther King Jr. equate with hatred towards black people?

the answer, Fluffy, is, for the exact same reason that a derogatory statement about Pius X would be read as equating with hatred towards Catholics.
 

 

MLKjr isn't being attacked (though whether he should be or not is another matter entirely!) As somebody pointed out, Donahue was condemning some kind of "art" that portrayed Our Lord in the situation described. He rightfully pointed out that this is seen as "perfectly OK" by the proponents of modern art, but that they would be throwing a fit if, for example, MLKjr was portrayed in this manner in art.

[Sophia]

I already said what I thought would be an appropriate response.  For that, I got a series of ad hominem attacks.  Yet no one has demonstrated that my proposal would be wrong, other than to attack my friends, people of good will whom none of you have met, but whose views, motives and state of grace your presume to intuit, and to announce the presumptive damnation of someone, I'm not sure who, or perhaps everyone, connected with a particular production, including, apparently, the entire University of Minnesota.  Now that's rational discourse.

 

If I am not mistaken, it was you who started out with the ad hominems when you said this:

 

 I have no respect for Donohue, and find him to be an embarassment.  He does not speak for the Church.

 

 

 

[Sophia]

MLKjr isn't being attacked (though whether he should be or not is another matter entirely!) As somebody pointed out, Donahue was condemning some kind of "art" that portrayed Our Lord in the situation described. He rightfully pointed out that this is seen as "perfectly OK" by the proponents of modern art, but that they would be throwing a fit if, for example, MLKjr was portrayed in this manner in art.

 

Give it up, Eric.  This has been pointed out to her several times already.

[Robb]

Donahue is a great guy who at least has the courage to stand up and defend our faith from the ridicule and persecution of others. 

 

If some people are offended by the things he says then I doubt that the Church would appeal to them much anyway.  After all, are any of his comments more direct then those of the great pre council Popes like Pius IX and X?

 

Just like these holy men, Donahue stands up to the world and proclaims to them the truth, not only of their bigotry, but also their hypocritical nature.

 

BTW, how can you join the Catholic league?

 

Bob