William A. Donohue

In the past five years, the Catholic League has grown faster than any other civil rights organization in the country. Inextricably tied to that achievement is our public visibility: it has grown enormously, as has our impact on the culture. That’s because of you.

If there is one refrain that I’m tired of hearing, it’s this one: “I’m only one person, so what can I do?” Now if this were true, there would be no discoveries, no inventions, no creativity of any kind. It’s also a good thing that Father Blum didn’t believe such nonsense, otherwise there would be no Catholic League.

Contrary to what is taught in the schools these days, history is not the creation of all those who have lived it. No, history is result of the cumulative efforts of those men and women who decided to make a difference, whether for good or ill; a spectator status is not one of their characteristics.

Those who belong to the Catholic League are players, not spectators. They write letters, make phone calls, debate friends, galvanize their parish, photocopy articles, tape shows, contribute to appeals, garner new members, alert the national office, leak information, etc. And they pray. What they don’t do is watch and whine.

To be sure, we have a dedicated staff, housed in New York, and we have a sprinkling of chapters, spread throughout the nation. But we have nothing without our members.

To prove this point, consider how we defeated “Nothing Sacred.” A copy of the pilot for the new series was sent to me by someone at Twentieth Century Fox, the producer of the show. Why? Because he learned through the Hollywood grapevine that at some point Fox had to reckon with the Catholic League. Reason? Your past efforts, many of which proved to be successful.

Once we previewed the first edition of the show, we knew we had to act. That is why we took out the ad in Advertising Age warning prospective advertisers what they would be in for if they sponsored “Nothing Sacred.”

To be quite honest, we didn’t have a budget for the ad when we launched it. But we went ahead anyway, counting on an emergency appeal to cover the cost. And, as always, you came through. The result: we set the stage, putting corporate sponsors on notice.

Every week we posted on our website the names and addresses of the previous week’s sponsors of the show; we printed them again in Catalyst. And again, our members picked up the ball and ran with it.

This, then, is how it’s done. One member gets fired up, and then another. Next thing you know a storm of protest has been unleashed, the seeds of which go back to the “lone individual.” In short, the “lone individual” is more fiction than fact, and the sooner we learn this verity, the more progress we’re bound to have.

The Catholic League members that I’ve met, and the letters that I’ve read, convince me that they have a deep love of the Church, a strong sense of citizenship, uncommonly good common sense and a fierce determination to change the culture. They also have a great sense of humor, something which cannot be said of our harshest critics. Perhaps most important, when I meet Catholic Leaguers, I meet people who inspire. Here’s a quick example.

Over the summer, I traveled to Chicago to address the Confraternity of Catholic Clergy. Without doubt, they are the most dedicated group of priests I have ever met. Loyal to the magisterium and to the Holy Father, these priests love the Catholic League. Meeting men like Father Trigilio, Father Day and Father Krause was something very special. Listening to, and meeting, Cardinal George, was another highlight of my trip. The collective blessing that the group bestowed on me is something I will always treasure.

Sometimes we forget that there are so many good people out there. Knowing this to be true is the real reason why I’m fundamentally optimistic: the clock is ticking our way, not the way of our adversaries. So please keep this in mind the next time you think things can’t change. And remember, we’re not the only ones who know which way the clock is ticking. After all, why do you think the other side is so glum?

William A. Donohue

This past spring, while addressing the Orlando chapter of Legatus, I entered into a discussion with a man who questioned why there was so much Catholic bashing these days. I could have given him a long dissertation on the subject, but chose not to. Instead, I simply said, “Because they really do hate us.” He seem momentarily puzzled but soon got the point.

Who are the “they,” and is it fair to say that they “hate” us? To begin with, it must be said that most of those who take unfair aim at the Catholic Church do not hate us, per se, they simply reject with anger some teachings of the Church. But there is a minority within that group that definitely hates us, the “us” being the Church and those who defend it. That is the group I wish to discuss.

More often than not, “they” are men and women whose idea of liberty, especially sexual freedom, conflicts sharply with the Church’s embrace of sexual reticience. Indeed, it is no stretch to say that for those who hate us, their idea of freedom is genitally derived.

“Hate” is a strong word and can lose its force if overused. But there is no other word I know that accurately describes the reaction to the Catholic League’s protest of “Corpus Christi.” The hate mail and phone calls have been as alarming as they have been voluminous. The distortions of what we have said have kept pace with the bashing, enough so that it makes me wonder what it is that possesses these people.

The uproar over “Corpus Christi” has led to a string of radio and TV debates. Not surprisingly, those who are integrally involved with the play refuse to debate anyone from the Catholic League.

When I recently showed up at a TV studio in New York for a debate on this issue, I was told by the producer that she had contacted a long list of notable playwrights and columnists who were supportive of the play, but unfortunately they were all busy that day. In no uncertain terms, I told her that I didn’t believe it for a moment, commenting that they were all cowards. Because she wasn’t persuaded, I made her a challenge: call them every day to debate me—I’ll be there, I said—but the result will be the same. She never answered.

The person I finally debated was the vice president for People for the American Way. It wasn’t much of a debate. But I did appreciate Barbara Handman’s spin on “Piss Christ,” that artistic masterpiece by Serrano that displayed a crucifix in a jar of urine. Claiming that it was “reverential,” Handman opined that “what it was saying was that the current Catholic community was destroying the teachings of Christ.” By such logic, it could be argued that the display of a Star of David in a bowl of feces was simply a statement on how the current Jewish community was destroying the teachings of Moses.

The need to lie is understandable. When it gets to matters like “Corpus Christi” and “Piss Christ,” defenders must either run and hide, or lie. What they don’t want is an honest debate, for that would mean that they would lose. Like Marx and Lenin before them, they not only lie, cheat and steal, they actually boast of the necessity to do so. The good news is that by drawing even a few of them out, we prove victorious. Consider the piece by Craig Lucas in this issue of Catalyst.

Lucas’ defense of “Corpus Christi” is a marvelous contribution. Incoherent and absurd, Lucas wanders all over the place venting his hatred of the Catholic Church. It is a marvelous contribution because no matter how hard we try to make the case against the play, it would be impossible to improve on Lucas’ offering: he has provided all the evidence we need to demonstrate that those who love “Corpus Christi” are fundamentally different from the rest of us. With logic and reason, Rick Hinshaw destroyed Lucas’ argument, but with anger and hatred, Lucas exposed his motive, and there is nothing sweeter than this when it comes to debate.

Likewise, it was no shocker to learn that I was called anti-gay, anti-Jewish and anti-black, simply because I wrote the “Shylock and Sambo” ad. Tony Kushner, a prominent playwright, made such a charge, knowing full well that my piece was designed to rock those who support “Corpus Christi.” So I’m a bigot for drawing this analogy and he’s a free speech advocate for embracing “Corpus Christi.” Gotcha.

So they really do hate us. Now where does that leave us? Obviously, we should not hate back. But we should also not hold back. We are called to defend the Church and that means we should responsibly and aggressively engage our adversaries. And win.

William A. Donohue

A few years ago, Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote a brilliant article explaining how our society was “defining deviancy down.” What he observed was the disturbing tendency to approve of behavior that previously had been labeled deviant. He was right in his assessment, but he didn’t adequately address its root causes.

Over the past quarter century, there has been a concerted effort to redefine morality. Those leading the charge have come almost exclusively from the ranks of well-educated men and women who are paid to disseminate ideas. For the most part, they work in higher education, the entertainment industry, journalism, the arts, the publishing world, foundations and non-profit activist organizations. Never mind that their sermons on tolerance often belie a mad devotion to intolerance, what deserves discussion is why they seek to redefine morality.

The contemporary approach to morality, as understood by the chattering class, is expressly solipsistic. In other words, morality is something that begins and ends with individual preferences. It’s as though each of us is entitled to make up his own morality without any reference to the common good. The result is moral chaos.

The term “individual morality” is an oxymoron: morality is a social construct, having absolutely nothing to do with individual wants or desires. It cannot be said too strongly that morality refers to principles or standards of right conduct and is not therefore analogous to tastes or opinions. Just as there is no such thing as an individual social order, there is no such thing as an individual moral order; only a society can possess a social and moral order.

Part of the problem we have today is the belief that societies are comprised of a bunch of individuals. Nothing could be more wrong. Societies are comprised of groups—families, tribes, clans, parishes, communities, organizations—all of which form a reality that transcends the contribution of the many individuals who live within its normative boundaries. The idea that every man, woman and child walks around with his or her own morality—as if we were speaking about legs—is sociologically illiterate.

When you are invited into the home of your neighbor or cousin, you are expected to abide by the house rules, some of which you may find disagreeable. Similarly, when you live in society (you have no other choice, by the way) you are expected to live by its house rules, some of which you may find disagreeable. In short, house rules, or moral codes, cannot be vetoed by individuals willy-nilly. They can change but they can never be whatever anyone wants them to be.

The idea that morality can be dissolved to individual claims is not simply wrong, it is pernicious. For example, no one could drive to school or work unless a moral code was understood and enforced. We don’t leave it up to each driver to determine what is right and wrong and that’s why we have signs and lines. The fact that not everyone agrees with these moral rules means nothing: what matters is that most people agree with them.

The same is true of such fashionable ideas as gay marriages. It does not matter that the chattering class approves of two men marrying, what matters is that most people see no legitimate social interest in granting gay couples the same social status that heterosexuals enjoy. To the extent that we value the institution of marriage, we must devalue alternatives to it.

The good news is that the Catholic Church doesn’t subscribe to the thesis that everyone is free to determine what is right and wrong. That is one reason why the Church is properly seen as a countercultural institution these days. This is the kind of deviancy we should applaud.

At bottom, those who want to treat morality as if it were a smorgasbord are driven by selfishness. They want sex without encumbering consequences (no kids or AIDS) and they want the rest of us to pay for their abortions and medical research. They want access to pornography on the internet and laws that punish sexual advances in the workplace that they deem unwanted.

Most of all, those who seek to privatize morality want to live in a world where no one passes judgment on their behavior. This is a world of fantasy. It’s also a world of deceit, discontent, discord and disease. So three cheers for Catholicism. By rejecting this world it makes possible the only alternative lifestyle worth pursuing.

William A. Donohue

After President Clinton took Communion at a South African Roman Catholic church, a well-known journalist, himself not a Catholic, defended the president by saying that what he did was an example of ecumenism. He further held that the Catholic Church should be more inclusive, maintaining that it made good sense to welcome people from other religions to receive the Eucharist at Mass. Unfortunately, this kind of thinking—confusing ecumenism for inclusiveness—is commonplace.

To be ecumenical is to promote greater understanding and cooperation between one religion and another; it is not to collapse the teachings of one religion to fit harmoniously with the strictures of another. True ecumenism respects differences and does not seek to dump all beliefs and teachings into a high speed theological blender. If that were done, the result would be mush.

Respecting differences, especially religious differences, isn’t very difficult for those who are on sure footing with their own. The obverse is also true: it is much harder to respect the tenets of another religion when standing on slippery grounds. The natural corrective is not to soften the grounds of others but to strengthen one’s own.

Those who clamor for greater inclusion run up against some pretty elementary sociological laws. All groups, beginning with the family, are based on exclusion. That’s what makes every family so special: parents, children and other blood relatives hold a non-transferable status that constitutes their special relationship. People do not decide to check into a family the way they do a hotel, nor are they empowered to invite their friends to join.

With religion, it’s admittedly somewhat different. All religions are based on a set of beliefs about the supernatural, beliefs that are subject to change. It is entirely possible to change those beliefs, but it is not possible to make them so inclusive that they embrace everything and anything. If that were to happen, the tent of inclusiveness would collapse of its own weight.

To put it another way, attempts to maximize inclusiveness are bought at the expense of real community. True, meaningful communities are always micro in nature, never macro. That is why it is positively fatuous to believe that there is such a thing as a global community: if it’s global in size, it can’t be a community (except in the mind of a professor, of course, where all things are possible).

There is also something dishonest about contemporary appeals to inclusiveness. For example, we often hear that the Boy Scouts should be more inclusive, that they should include girls, the godless and gays. Now if this were to happen, it would mean the end of the Boy Scouts, and this explains why those who hate the Scouts continue to advance their claims.

Meanwhile, no one would demand that gay clubs on campus include heterosexuals or that black dorms allow whites to join. Indeed, even radical feminists don’t complain that the Olympics are inherently sexist—though they are, according to their terms—because to do so would be to call for one, open and all-inclusive event; if that were to happen, the results would be obvious.

Teenagers looking for trouble like to “crash” parties. Similarly, ideologues looking for trouble like to crash communities; they do so by invoking the politics of inclusiveness. Instead of respecting diversity, they seek to crush it, and they do so by crashing the walls of those communities they wish to change. This is intolerance, pure and simple.

In the end, there is nothing ecumenical about partaking in the sacraments of another religion, rather it is opportunistic and exploitative. Ed Koch, the former mayor of New York, has attended countless Masses, yet it would never occur to him to receive Communion. Koch, who is Jewish, has too much respect for Catholicism to do such a thing.

Religions that reflexively stretch their contours to include outsiders risk losing their insiders. To be Catholic is to have an identity, just as to be Jewish is to have an identity. That Catholics cannot be bar mitzvahed is only just. Let the princes of inclusiveness call it discrimination, or scream “victim.” Any religion that doesn’t protect its borders risks losing its center.

Ecumenism, like anything other value, is capable of being corrupted. At its best, it is a call for mutual respect and understanding. At its worst, it is a call for surrender. What matters is whether we want pudding or jello. Make mine pudding, and I’ll take it to go. With my friends, of course.

    William A. Donohue

On a recent television show that I was on, one of the other guests remarked that Catholicism risked becoming obsolete because its message wasn’t relevant enough to today’s Catholics. I thought this was a strange comment, especially coming from a Catholic university professor. The good news is that she’s wrong.

Those who say that Catholicism should become more relevant mean to say that the Church should alter its teachings to mirror contemporary public opinion. They err twice: a) the magisterium of the Church, i.e., the pope in communion with the bishops, does not and cannot come to conclusions regarding the proper teachings of the Church by consulting George Gallup, and b) if they did they’d kill the Church. Because the former is true, the latter does not apply. But let’s assume that it might, just for the heck of it.

It is no secret that in the past quarter century, those religions that have lost the greatest number of members have also been those that have done their best to become “relevant.” For evidence, consider the sharp decline in the mainline Protestant churches: the Episcopal, Methodist, Presbyterian and Lutheran churches have all taken a hit, and none more than the Episcopal; the Episcopal has also been the most successfully “relevant.”

The latest data confirm these conclusions. The National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA has just released its 1998 yearbook. The volume lists statistics drawn from 1996, the latest year that complete data are available; it contains information on 164 U.S. churches.

The data show that the numbers posted by Roman Catholicism are the envy of other Christian churches. While two other religions witnessed higher gains than Catholicism, Churches of Christ and Latter Day Saints/Mormons, both have a base number which is a fraction of the size of the Catholic religion, making percentage increases easier to achieve. Clearly the most stunning growth occurred in the ranks of Roman Catholicism: between 1995 and 1996, membership in the Roman Catholic Church increased by 1.54%, to a record number of 61,207,914 (second to us is the Southern Baptist Convention with 15,691,964).

Numbers don’t tell us everything, and indeed the case could be made that a smaller, but more unified, Catholic Church is preferable to the current state of affairs in the Church. Notwithstanding this possibility, those who instruct the Church to marry its teachings to the reigning orthodoxies of the dominant culture are simply out to lunch. Indeed, it is because the Church doesn’t succumb to the lowest cultural denominator that it continues to grow. By providing eternal answers to eternal problems, the Church—in this sense—is more relevant to people’s lives than virtually any other institution in society.

Let’s put it this way. Those who want serious answers to serious questions don’t repair to a local guru for advice, rather they confide in their parish priest. For example, if someone is given to sexual recklessness, it makes no sense to look to the Playboy Philosophy for guidance. If drinking is a curse, stopping off at Cheers for conversation won’t help. If suicidal tendencies are evident, consulting Dr. Kevorkian isn’t the answer. Those drawn to violence don’t seek remedies by following the lead of Kung Fu and those who are depressed don’t watch “Nothing Sacred” for relief. This is just common sense.

Yes, some Catholics complain about certain Church teachings. But the reason they keep coming back is because the Church doesn’t attempt to mirror the culture. In a day and age of victimhood and New Age spirituality, where “feelings” are soothed by reading the latest book on “angels,” it is not surprising that millions of level-headed men and women find no solace in such soft and fuzzy responses. That is why most persons inevitably seek out answers that are as timeless as they are true. And what better place to go to than the Catholic Church?

Questioning Catholicism’s relevancy, then, is downright silly. Because the problems we face today are rooted in human nature, and are therefore not dramatically different from the problems faced by our ancestors, it makes great sense to look to Catholicism; possessing, as it does, lasting answers to perennial human concerns, the Roman Catholic Church cannot help but be relevant. This may not be music to the ears of those whose idea of relevancy is a hip do-it-youself Church, but given their own indisputable irrelevancy, who really cares?

William A. Donohue

On April 16, the Catholic League will celebrate its 25^th anniversary with a dinner at The Plaza in New York City (see p. 7 for the details). There is much to celebrate, as well as much to focus on down the road.

Were it not for Virgil C. Blum, S.J., there would be no Catholic League. The founder of the Catholic League, Father Blum was a Marquette University professor of political science who had a vision for the Catholic laity that was, and still is, a fairly radical idea: he wanted Catholic men and women to become full participants in society, bringing their informed Catholic conscience to bear on the reigning issues of the day. The problem, he often said, was that Catholics were political pygmies, and that is why he characterized them in 1983 as “chumps, patsies, dopes, born-every-minute suckers.”

Those are harsh words. But consider the context: he wrote that at a time when it seemed that every other group in society was passing us by, long after the civil rights movement had been launched. Rights mania had gripped the nation, touching blacks, women, homosexuals, migrant farm workers, students, the handicapped, Indians, Hispanics, Asians, aliens—everyone, it seemed, but Catholics (Jews had long since established the Anti-Defamation League).

It was against this background that Father Blum set forth his agenda. He knew that from the beginning of our nation’s history, Catholics had struggled for acceptance, looking mostly to the clergy for guidance. In terms of discrimination, Catholics had made progress, but in terms of engaging the culture, they had largely adopted the Greyhound mentality, leaving the driving to others. That had to change.

Most of those who experienced rights mania entertained a narrow view, seeking a greater slice of the American pie for themselves. Father Blum had a very different understanding: he wanted to transform public policy and the culture, making society better not only for Catholics, but for everyone else. The American ideals of liberty, justice and equality, he reasoned, could not be achieved unless the Church was more vocal and lay Catholics more assertive. This is what the Catholic League was set up to do.

Blum’s writings concentrated heavily on the schools, the judiciary, the media, the culture, abortion and political participation. He saw two major problems with the schools—the lack of choice and the collapse of values. A tireless champion of vouchers and tuition tax credits, Blum was outraged that teachers, politicians and judges worked hard to deny parents the right to place their children in a parochial school. With regard to the curriculum, Blum joined with many in denouncing what a sham a so-called value-free education was.

Blum was rightfully upset with the courts. None of the rulings we now live with on abortion, pornography, students’ rights, prisoners’ rights, etc. are even vaguely found in the Constitution, but that hasn’t stopped nine persons from inventing them. The media came in for criticism because of its hostility to Catholicism and for its morally offensive fare, problems that continue to plague us.

The last article that Father Blum wrote was in March, 1990. Entitled, “My Hope for the Future…and a Fond Farewell,” Father Blum announced his retirement shortly before he died. Here is how he ended his piece:

“I look to a future in which Catholic League membership recruitment efforts will meet with more than the meager response garnered in the past. I look to a future in which the League will grow in terms of staff; in which more men and women, on fire for the cause of Christ, will be able to find a sense of fulfillment and security in employment with the Catholic League. I look forward to a future in which the Catholic League, supported by the Catholic laity of the United States, will impact more strongly on the ideas of society. And a I look forward to a future in which the Catholic League can more forcefully meet whatever challenges face our most precious freedom: religious freedom.”

His final words were, “And that freedom is attainable because of you, the activist Catholics who comprise the Catholic League’s membership.” That says it all.

I hope you can be with us to celebrate our Silver Anniversary. I have no doubt that Father Blum’s spirit will be with us.

There are many genres of anti-Catholicism, the most well-known of which are discriminatory practices against individual Catholics and bigoted assaults on the institutional Church. Both forms continue to exist, but the contemporary strain of Catholic bashing that is most common, if less visible, is best understood as a manifestation of cultural politics.

Culture is an expression of all that constitutes our way of life. Politics speaks to the use of power, exercised by individuals and institutions in society. Cultural politics is the political use of cultural symbols and ideas to fashion, or, more typically, refashion, society according to the vision of those exercising power. It is based on the assumption that changes in the culture precede institutional changes. To put it differently, if we undergo a change in the way we look at the institutions in which we live, then it is entirely possible that we will accept, even demand, changes that fit with our new vision of reality.

Here’s an example of what I mean. Today, smoking is prohibited in many restaurants, workplaces and airports. These institutional changes followed a long campaign by anti-smoking forces to change the way Americans think about smoking. The campaign included a determination by Hollywood to show fewer people smoking on TV and in the movies, educational programs aimed at young people, etc. In short, first we changed our thinking, then we changed our rules and laws.

Here’s the connection with today’s anti-Catholicism: currently, there is a strong attempt being waged by those who don’t like various aspects of Catholicism to change the way we think about our Church, the long-term purpose of which is to get us to accept the kinds of institutional changes that the commandants of the culture want so badly. Though this type of anti-Catholicism is less palpable than previous efforts, its effect is just as lethal.

To be specific, it is the anti-Catholicism that emanates from the entertainment industry, the artistic community and literary quarters that typifies Catholic bashing in the late twentieth century. Sometimes subtle, sometimes not, what makes it different from previous expressions of anti-Catholicism is that this one is less likely to be seen as a frontal assault. But that’s exactly why it’s so invidious: it’s a type of guerrilla warfare being played out on the screen, the canvas and the keyboard.

Many of today’s TV shows and movies that discuss Catholicism are not anti-Catholic in the traditional use of that term. But they do qualify as neo-anti-Catholicism insofar as they are a good example of the kind of cultural politics that should concern every member of the Catholic League. When the executive producers of “Nothing Sacred” comment that the purpose of the show is to provoke “dialogue where little exists,” it’s clear that what is at work is an attempt to alter the way the public, and most especially Catholics, look at certain Church teachings.

This strategy owes a lot to Antonio Gramsci. Gramsci was an early twentieth century Marxist who differed with Marx on how to revolutionize capitalist societies. Marx believed that the proletariat, the urban working class, would eventually become so exploited that they would band together and overthrow the ruling class. Gramsci put his hope not in the proletariat but in those who took command of the channels of communication. By radicalizing cultural institutions and changing people’s values and morals, the way to real institutional change would be paved.

It now makes sense why artists and novelists continue to rail against the Church. Many of them hate the way the Church operates and have special contempt for its teachings on sexuality. They reason that if they can reorient the public’s perception of Catholicism, they will have laid the groundwork for the kinds of changes they seek. This is most easily seen in the work of artists and novelists who were raised Catholic, turned against the Church with a vengeance, and are working out their adolescent rage with the fervor of Bible-thumping minister.

What’s at stake for us is obvious. These nouveau bigots are quick to wrap themselves in the First Amendment. That’s okay—we should respect their right to exercise their freedom of speech against us. But we should not do so lying down. Instead, we should go right at them, using our First Amendment right to expose them for the operators that they are: by unmasking their agenda we can subvert their experiment in cultural politics and send them back to the drawing board. After all, there’s no reason to believe why Gramsci should prove to be any more successful than Marx.

William A. Donohue

Dialogue has become more than a buzz word, it’s become a mantra. Just invoking the word makes some feel good, if not altogether righteous. Like a kid on dope, we expect that uttering the “D” word will relieve us of pain and sorrow. Until we sober up, of course. Then it starts all over again.

Most things in life that are useful can, if misused, prove to be worse than useless—they can prove to be disastrous. Take knives. In the hands of a trained surgeon, they can save lives. In the hands of a thug, they can end it. The same is true of dialogue. There are times when it is indispensable to progress, other times when it is a barrier to justice.

Responsible parents don’t dialogue with their kids over what’s right and wrong, they inform them of their decision. To be sure, it may help to explain the reasoning behind the decision, but ultimately what parents want to avoid is getting into a position where dialogue allows their kids to triumph. If that happens, then parental authority dissolves.

The same is true with the Catholic League’s favorite character of all time, the indubitable Father Ray. How not to like a guy who is so genuine, so human, so compassionate, so given to dialogue, so dumb? Trust me, it can be done.

Father Ray is liked by so many because he is willing to engage in dialogue. Most priests advise a woman contemplating abortion of the certain consequences that such a decision entails. They instruct her of the many alternatives that the Church provides and the support that she will receive. But not Father Ray, he wants dialogue. She looks for guidance and he tells her to follow her conscience.

Almost all priests who have commented on this scene (taken from the first episode), including those who have expressed admiration for the show, have balked at the way Father Ray handles the situation. Not too many would agree with a mid-Western Catholic commentator who proclaimed that Father Ray’s position was “actually standard Catholic moral theology.”

Real “standard Catholic moral theology,” as stated in the Catholic Catechism, says that “Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened.” As examples of what it terms “erroneous judgment,” the Catechism explicitly cites “assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience” and “rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching.” It does not say that dialogue can be used as a substitute for right reason.

A Catholic journalist has written that Father Ray “has been tape-recorded in the confessional giving advice on abortion that his superiors dislike.” (My emphasis.) What this suggests is that those who directly contravene Church teachings are on a par with those who disagree with their pastor over the wisdom of Sunday night bingo. That is why they press for dialogue.

Dialogue is predicated on the theory that all parties to conflict should have an equal opportunity of prevailing. This is what children do when they are deciding what game to play or what movie to see. It is what friends do when they confront a crisis and it is what spouses do everyday. But it is not what doctors do with their patients or what pilots do with their passengers. In those cases, the authority figure decides. Certainly one of the authority figures in the Catholic Church is the Catechism. Ergo, Father Ray is out of line.

There are those who are so willing to give Father Ray the benefit of a doubt that they literally invent reasons for defending him. For example, one Catholic writer wrote of the infamous confessional scene that “perhaps” Father Ray was about to give stronger advice to the woman, “but we don’t see that on the screen.” There’s a reason for that: he wasn’t about to.

One source that isn’t unsure what this scene means is ABC. On its website, the network continues to boast that “In the confessional, Ray ignores Church policy,” making hash of those who argue otherwise.

To the chagrin of his fans, Father Ray sees with clarity what they don’t want to admit. In an interview in the New York Times, actor Kevin Anderson says of his character, “As I see him, he’s a person who’s basically trying to get rid of the rituals of the church.” He’s right. And this explains why he doesn’t feel the need to dialogue with anyone about it. It should also explain why we at the Catholic League feel exasperated when we’re urged to dialogue with Disney/ABC/20^th Century Fox.

On that note of confidence, let me wish you all a very Merry Christmas. No need to dialogue about that! As the Nike commercial says, “Just do it.”

William A. Donohue

Catholics are not a monolithic entity and it is therefore not surprising that the Catholic reaction to “Nothing Sacred” has been anything but uniform. On the one hand, we have bishops, priests, nuns, religious and lay persons who have signed our petition against Disney and are incensed about the show. On the other hand, we have bishops, priests, nuns, religious and lay persons who like the show and wouldn’t think of signing our petition. This column is dedicated to those in the latter category.

Forget about what the Catholic League says about the show. Here’s how ABC advertises “Nothing Sacred” on its website: “He just cursed out an obnoxious guy on the street, came pretty close to accepting a bribe and almost got fired. Some might say he ‘needs church.’ But then, he’s already a priest. Blessed with a God-given talent of touching people’s souls, Father Ray could use some soul saving soothing of his own.” Of course it might help if Father Ray actually believed in God (he is depicted as being uncertain), because then he would need less “soul saving soothing.”

US, one of those trendy magazines that wouldn’t exist without the paparazzi (you’ve seen it in your dentist’s office), gave an even better account of “Nothing Sacred” in its October edition. After chiding the Catholic League to lighten up, US came clean. Father Ray is described as “leftist, horny, combative and prone to telling female confessors unsure about abortion that it’s their choice.” And this is the kind of priest that some Catholics want to see on TV, and perhaps in real life as well.

A master of sarcasm, US tells us that “like Superman, when he puts on his cassock he performs miracles. In the clinch with God or an ex-girlfriend, Father Ray is sometimes a bit sanctimonious, but this demystifying drama about the priesthood truly pushes the TV envelope.” But not far enough to satisfy the curious appetite of some Catholics. Indeed, this is their kind of priest, a refreshing contrast to the Bing Crosby-Barry Fitzgerald types that have been the source of so much embarrassment to them over the years.

Some Catholics are exuberant over the mere fact that this show is actually addressing the theme of religion. But listen to the names of other “religion” shows on TV these days: “7^thHeaven”; “Soul Man”; “Good News”; “Touched by an Angel”; “Promised Land,” etc. And for Catholics, we are awarded with a program whose message is accurately conveyed in its title, “Nothing Sacred.”

So why do some Catholics like “Nothing Sacred”? At root, their admiration stems from their uneasiness with hierarchy. What they want is a clergy who are just like the rest of us, namely, flawed human beings who just happen to be priests. They think it is a mistake for the laity to look up to priests and they deplore the hierarchical structure of the Catholic Church. Intoxicated with equality, they delight in seeing priests portrayed as social workers in robes.

The nineteenth century Frenchman, Alexis de Tocqueville, commented that “men cannot do without dogmatic beliefs” and that the most desirable of them all were “religious dogmas.” He looked to priests to provide answers to such first questions as “why am I here?” and “who put me here?” The answers to these primordial questions, he stressed, “must be clear, precise, intelligible to the crowd, and very durable.” It is not easy to see how this can be done when there are no status distinctions between priests and the laity.

Father Ray, of course, does not believe in giving answers that are clear, precise, intelligible or durable, and that is why he can’t find it within himself to counsel a young woman in the confessional against abortion. Those who like Father Ray aren’t offended by this because the last thing they want to be tagged is judgmental, at least when the subject is abortion (it’s okay to be judgmental about the death penalty). What they like is that Father Ray shows compassion, and that’s all that counts.

In the end, the most interesting aspect of “Nothing Sacred” is not the show itself, it is the reaction to it in Catholic quarters. It says a lot about what where we’re at. Where we wind up depends on us.

William A. Donohue

Perhaps the most aggravating aspect of “Nothing Sacred” is the audacity of the executive producers, David Manson and Richard Kramer, to admit that it is their purpose to create “dialogue” among Catholics about the teachings of their church. Who ever asked—or appointed—these two men, both of whom are Jewish and both of whom believe in nothing, to foment dialogue in my church?

That three of the five writers for the show have been identified as Catholic puts the lie to the argument that there is a “Jewish” cabal at work. But I still want to press the issue of the propriety of someone who is outside the Church appropriating to himself the right to create dialogue about my religion.

On July 22, ABC held a press conference to answer the charges of the Catholic League. Manson began by wondering aloud how “I’m going to sit up in front of 200 people and explain how a Jew is doing a piece about a Catholic priest.” That’s a stupid way to begin. As Michael Medved has shown, it was nothing but Jews who produced the finest movies about Catholics in the 1930s and 1940s. The real question is why so many Jews and others in Hollywood today are bent on making movies about Catholics that smack of a politically correct agenda.

It used to be that those who were not Catholic and had a beef with the Church were content on being voyeurs, that is, they would look, listen, talk and write about the Church in a most curious way. But those days are gone: we’ve now hit the stage where attempts to literally manipulate public opinion is commonplace; this represents a shift from voyeurism to imperialism.

“One of our goals,” said David Manson, “is to subvert people’s expectations as to the nature of a priest’s or nun’s life in the contemporary world.” What he didn’t say is that the purpose of this subversion is to put a positive spin on a priest who rejects the Church’s idea of sexual ethics, thereby endearing him to “progressive” Catholics and to those non-Catholics who also find fault with the Church in this area.

Manson has a highly politicized understanding of dialogue. He explicitly says that his aim is “to create dialogue where not very much exists.” But there is very little dialogue among Jews about groups like Jews for Jesus, yet Manson wouldn’t think of doing a show that creates dialogue among Jews by favorably portraying a leader from this marginalized group.

The term “dialogue,” when used in this context, is dishonest. It’s not about dialogue, it’s about dissent. What it comes down to is that Manson and Kramer are architects of the raw use of Hollywood’s political muscle to undermine respect for the Magisterium. How they pull this off is interesting.

First, they create a priest who serves the needy by tending to his soup kitchen. Then they show him openly proclaiming the folly of the Church’s teachings on sexuality. This is followed by his unwillingness to counsel against abortion in the confessional. What it boils down to is this: this is a Nineties kind of priest—he’s compassionate, not hung up on sex and bravely autonomous. On the other hand, those parishioners who complain about the homeless who use their neighborhood as bathrooms are depicted as heartless, though loyal, Catholics (read: it is because they’re loyal that they’re heartless).

The dichotomy that is at work here is obvious. Catholics who care about the poor are also smart enough to accept contraception, abortion, homosexuality and promiscuity, while those who would grind their heels in the face of the poor (they’re called “yuppie scum” by Father Ray) are dumb enough to swallow the Church’s moonshine about sexuality.

All of which brings me back to my first point: “Nothing Sacred” is political propaganda against the Magisterium being waged by producers who are outsiders. It is no more their business to concern themselves with the degree of dialogue that exists within the Catholic Church than it is the business of Catholic broadcasters to concern themselves with the degree of dialogue that exists between secular and religious Jews. Just imagine the reaction if a Catholic band sang songs that glorified orthodox Jews at the expense of those who never attend synagogue!

It all comes down to sex. Hollywood can’t get enough of it and any institution that preaches the virtue of restraint is bound to be seen as the enemy. That is why attempts to undermine the moral authority of the Church to pronounce on matters sexual will not abate any time too soon. It also signals why the Catholic League will never walk away from a fight.