Tuscon Church Provides Sanctuary to Immigrants »« Law Prof Finds a Whopping 31 Cases of Voter Impersonation

Bill Donohue’s Empty Accusations of Hypocrisy

Bill Donohue, the perpetually red-faced, anger-filled bag of wind who exists only to defend the Catholic Church against any and all criticism, is responding to a CNN report on Catholic bishops living lavish lifestyles with an empty and irrelevant accusation of hypocrisy.

What’s rich, according to Donohue, is CNN’s double-standard.

“CNN never stops talking about “income inequality,”” he stated, calling for the executives of Time Warner, CNN’s parent company, “to turn their camera on themselves.”

“Jeff Bewkes, who is CEO of CNN’s parent company, Time Warner, “pulled down $32.5 million last year and has a net worth of over $100 million,” according to Donohue.

“Bet his carpets are real ‘thick,’” he said, referring back to the network’s characterization of Dolan’s rugs.

“Others include John Martin, Paul Cappuccio, Gary Ginsberg and Olaf Olafsson; their 2013 salaries, were, respectively, $12.9 million, $7.8 million, $4.1 million, and $4.1 million.”

Of course, none of those people have taken a laughable vow of poverty, have they? And they don’t work for an organization that claims to be doing God’s work, have they? And even if they are hypocrites, so what? How does that rescue the Catholic Church in even the slightest way from the fact that they are preaching one thing and doing another? The fact that other people may be hypocrites does not magically make the church not hypocritical. This is not a serious argument, it’s an attempt to distract attention. This shouldn’t surprise anyone. What else does he have?

Comments

  1. cptdoom says

    Of course, none of those people have taken a laughable vow of poverty, have they?

    Actually, Ed, it is likely the Bishops didn’t either, as priests are not required to take vows of poverty. Our parish pastor drove a Mercedes when I was a kid and I was stunned a priest could drive such a nice car, because my great-aunt, a Sister of St. Joseph, sure didn’t live in splendor (women religious do take a vow of poverty). Finding out about that discrepency is one of the many reasons I began to doubt the church.

  2. bahrfeldt says

    When the Catholic Church (or any other religious organization) starts paying income tax, real estate tax and sales tax and stops receiving direct and indirect subsidies from the nation, then it can complain about the excesses of others. Donohue is merely a puppet. And Dolan should remember, regarding women as priests, Jesus did indeed not select any women as apostles, but neither did he select any Irishmen.

  3. Reginald Selkirk says

    “CNN never stops talking about “income inequality,”” he stated,

    Really? I had the impression they spent most of their time talking about missing Malaysian Airlines flights.

  4. theguy says

    Being against income inequality while being rich yourself isn’t hypocrisy. Many people who are against income inequality want to reduce the level of inequality, not eliminate it. That being the case, there will still be rich people.

    I believe Paul Krugman has talked about this: the laughable idea that rich liberals are being hypocritical by advocating policies that help the poor.

    P.S. Donohue is still a shameless piece of shit.

  5. says

    Of course, none of those people have taken a laughable vow of poverty, have they? And they don’t work for an organization that claims to be doing God’s work, have they? And even if they are hypocrites, so what?

    They are also scumbags.

    I love it when scumbags try to defend other scumbags by saying “so-and-so is also a scumbag!!!’ Yeah …. and?

  6. says

    Being against income inequality while being rich yourself isn’t hypocrisy.

    Uh, yes, it is. Because getting rich involves – income inequality. Whether it’s heritable, a result of hard work, or hard rent-collecting, rich equals “unequal”. Saying someone is a rich person who is against richesse is to say they are a hypocrite. Especially when the condition of being rich is relatively easy to fix.

  7. D. C. Sessions says

    Uh, yes, it is. Because getting rich involves – income inequality.

    That’s precisely as hypocritical as being against obesity and feeding the poor.

  8. Crimson Clupeidae says

    Donohue is merely a puppet.

    Ewwww…I don’t wanna know whose hand is up his ass…..

  9. anubisprime says

    Typical RCC rhetoric…

    When the abuse scandals really gained serious traction in the media around the mid 90’s…one of the first excuses…after copious denials of course…mentioned quite straight faced that ‘every’ institution was doing it back in the day…the Protestants were as bad as , if not worse, then the Roman Catholic clergy for dipping wicks where they shalt not be dipped.
    They seriously considered that as a Prima Facie excuse, and they used it as a major justification, until it crashed and burned with all the other pathetic whines they considered as distraction and smoke and mirror tactics, without admitting they had a paedophile infestation, which lately has seen it being traced to the Cardinals…well who would have guessed?

    So Billy is just following his heroes ways and habits…you can always tell…cos it is invariably comes across and irrelevant brain dead fatuousness in the worst of all possible tastes, and content always without fail has absolutely fuck all to do with the main accusation…that the church is by and large a dysfunctional collection of mentally unstable sexually inadequate old men at the top and younger sociopathic sadists staffing the lower tiers of a magisterium obviously enjoying its final days .

  10. dingojack says

    Crimson Clupeidae (#13) – oh yes you do!
    (If not, I’d advise you to avoid shaking hands with anybody).
    :) Dingo

  11. caseloweraz says

    TheGuy: Being against income inequality while being rich yourself isn’t hypocrisy.

    Quite right, although you might have phrased it better. Warren Buffet is one rich man who is against income inequality, in the sense that he advocates higher tax rates for the rich.

    The charge of hypocrisy is often just a way to distract from the substance of the argument. Income inequality is a general condition of society; requiring any given rich person to give up their wealth would change that condition very little, if at all. (It might, however, cause certain other people to rub their hands with glee.)

Leave a Reply