Group funded by George Soros poised to attack US Bishops for the “Fortnight for Freedom”

This came via The Catholic League:

SOROS-FUNDED GROUP SET TO NAIL BISHOPS

June 18, 2012

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments as follows:

June 21 marks the beginning of the “Fortnight for Freedom” events, the campaign for religious liberty being conducted by the nation’s bishops. Fair-minded persons may disagree with this effort, but there is something unseemly going on when those who work for a George Soros-funded group are quietly providing talking points to the media.

John Gehring is an official at Faith in Public Life, and it is his organization that lives off the bounty of the left-wing atheist billionaire, Mr. Soros. On June 7, Gehring sent a memo to his buddies in the media (a copy of which was generously leaked to me—click here) instructing them on how to handle the bishops.They should begin by questioning the prelates why the Obama “accommodation” wasn’t good enough. “You have to ask why the bishops can’t take yes for an answer,” he wrote. [Sounds like Sandra Schneiders. No?]

Teaching them how to handle the “war on the Catholic Church,” Gehring advises, “Several bishops have used inflammatory and irresponsible rhetoric that conflates a process of working through complex policy issues with a fundamental attack on the Catholic Church.” He also frets over the politicization of the religious liberty campaign, an effort made possible, he neglects to say, because of the politicization of religion by President Obama.

Not to be outdone, Gehring presses his lackeys to victimize the victim, beckoning them to ask the bishops—all of whom refuse to prostitute their principles—“Are you willing to sacrifice Catholic charities, colleges and hospitals if you don’t get your way on the contraceptive mandate?”  [“But, for Wales?”]

Finally, Gehring provides a go-to list of Catholic activists who can be counted on to subvert the bishops’ message. It’s what we would expect from a George Soros group. [I think we should see that list!]

Contact Gehring: Gehring@faithinpubliclife.org

Contact our director of communications about Donohue’s remarks:
Jeff Field
Phone: 212-371-3191
E-mail: cl@catholicleague.org

Take a look at the PDF which is linked in the post, above, and HERE.

It would be good to discuss language to address the talking points these people are giving liberal newsies in order to attack the bishops.

It was interesting to see the names on the PDF:

Nicholas Cafardi (once at Duquesne)
Terrence W. Tilleyu (chair of the theology department at Jesuit-run Fordham)
Lisa Sowle Cahil (theology prof at Jesuit-run Boston College)
M. Cathleen Kaveny (prof at Notre Shame)
Fr. Tom Reese, SJ (ousted editor of Jesuit-run America)
John Gehring (writes for Fishwrap and HuffPo)
Paul Lakeland (Fairfied U)

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Biased Media Coverage, Magisterium of Nuns, Our Catholic Identity, Religious Liberty, The Drill, The future and our choices, The Last Acceptable Prejudice and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

31 Responses to Group funded by George Soros poised to attack US Bishops for the “Fortnight for Freedom”

  1. randomcatholic says:

    Thank God for the Catholic league!

  2. Peter says:

    Way to be ahead of the enemy, Fr. Z! My only complaint: “(a copy of which was generously leaked to me—click here)” has no hyperlink! [Thanks! I fixed it.]

  3. acardnal says:

    Speaking of Mr. Bill Donahue, Director of the Catholic League, he gave a talk about his new book Why Catholicism Matters and it can be seen here:
    http://www.booktv.org/Watch/13560/Why+Catholicism+Matters+How+Catholic+Virtues+Can+Reshape+Society+in+the+21st+Century.aspx

    I think this book is similar to Indivisible but has more Catholic content.

  4. John V says:

    I think we should also see the list of people John Gehring sent the memo to, and then check their work to see if the talking points influenced the reporting.

  5. wmeyer says:

    I think that Mr. Gehring, who appears to be an auxiliary member in good standing of the Magisterium of Nuns, is a poor one to criticize the bishops. His positions as espoused on his site would appear to place him in a role as an apostate.

  6. I bet if we all contributed collectively to those worthy of that list we would come up with a pretty accurate listing of names. Start with LCWR who are in that camp.

  7. jasoncpetty says:

    SOROS-FUNDED GROUP SET TO NAIL BISHOPS

    Meh, call me when there’s an indirect object at the end of that headline.

  8. jrpascucci says:

    I almost wish he had held this for, say, a week into the Fortnight, so we could then round up those who used them as talking points.

  9. oldaltarboy says:

    The signatories to this article http://www.faithinpubliclife.org/newsroom/press/catholic-leaders-to-rep-paul-ryan-stop-distorting-church-teaching-to-justify-immoral-budget/ on the faith in public life website might just be the list you are looking for.

  10. Kerry says:

    We point out to sir gering that ” inflammatory and irresponsible rhetoric” is precisely what the Founders intended the First Amendment to protect. Perhaps he cannot read.

  11. Annette says:

    I don’t disagree with the main argument presented in the Faith and Public Life letter. I think Republicans jump on the pro-life bandwagon and manipulate us so that we have to vote for them. The Democrats are no better and hook their social justice wagon up to abortion rights. I have to vote pro-life, but that invariably means I contribute to social policies that I abhor. What I want to see is a Catholic party: a party that is pro-life and pro-social justice. But, that will never happen. Annette

  12. Johnno says:

    We should bring up the fact about who funds him and ask him why we should take anything he says seriously? In fact, how can we trust him at all?

  13. chcrix says:

    “…Republicans jump on the pro-life bandwagon and manipulate us so that we have to vote for them. The Democrats are no better and hook their social justice wagon…”

    Your analysis is absolutely correct. There is no intention on either “side” of actually changing any important policy, foreign or domestic. Instead, each “side” simply engages in a non-stop attempt to frighten the voters with various bugaboos – mostly imaginary (thank you H.L.Mencken).

    There is no obligation to vote for alleged “pro life” candidates, especially when you have good reason to believe they are frauds. Did you really believe in McCain? Do you really believe in the pro-life bona fides of former Governor Romney of Massachusetts?

    By all means avoid endorsing a candidate who has positions you find morally obtuse. But don’t fall into the “lesser of two evils” trap.

    In the final analysis, if political action is the answer, you are asking the wrong questions.

    Christianity did not triumph in the Roman empire because it secured the approval of the Emperors. Rather the emperors ratified a radical change that was already well under way.

  14. Pingback: Spousal Privilege Altar Rails LCWR Lateran Treaty SNAP Social Justice | Big Pulpit

  15. NescioQuid says:

    You are absolutely right Annette. US politics is a hugely divisive arena. Mind you, we in UK are having to contend with multiple moral quandaries such as gay marriage and pressures being brought to bear on religious liberty. Ironically, while the the Church of England has kung caved, the Catholic Church has received solidarity from Sikhs and Muslims amongst others in its stand.

    This document is couched in legal language with a view to making the bishops stand appear a specious, self-indulgent waste of funds, that is unconcerned with the material welfare of Catholic employees. Do the Bishops invoke the Free Exercise of religious freedom clause in the Constitution.

  16. NescioQuid says:

    You are absolutely right Annette. US politics is a hugely divisive arena. Mind you, we in UK are having to contend with multiple moral quandaries such as gay marriage and pressures being brought to bear on religious liberty. Ironically, while the the Church of England has kung caved, the Catholic Church has received solidarity from Sikhs and Muslims amongst others in its stand.

    This document is couched in legal language with a view to making the bishops stand appear a specious, self-indulgent waste of funds, that is unconcerned with the material welfare of Catholic employees. Do the Bishops invoke the free exercise of religious freedom clause in the Constitution?? I think this fight has to be fought in legal terms.

    I don’t understand why Obama was given a Nobel Peace Prize so early in his term.

  17. Clinton R. says:

    If Obama is Satan’s bellhop, then Soros is his personal valet. Two of the most ungodly men walking the face of the earth.

  18. DisturbedMary says:

    Jesuits, ex-Jesuits, and Jesuit academics. Lions and tigers and bears.

  19. Imrahil says:

    Republicans jump on the pro-life bandwagon and manipulate us so that we have to vote for them. The Democrats are no better and hook their social justice wagon.

    And that still would be better than it actually appears to me, if the Republicans really were pro-life, and the Democrats really were pro-social justice, and if they precisely defined what the understood as social justice.

    It goes without saying that the Republicans could do a lot more for what they mean by disliking the “social justice” notion if they explained why these things they dislike are not social justice really. For no sane man except a rich egoist (and I doubt many even of rich egoists) can be against social justice, in the abstract.
    But that of course would mean endorsing social justice as a principle, which could lead to, though vastly less than feared, still some change of the concrete applications; and maybe they do not want that, of course…

  20. FaithfulCatechist says:

    a party that is pro-life and pro-social justice

    Fifty years into the “Great Society” this canard — one party is for social justice and the other is not — is getting pretty worn. I’m amazed that people still believe it.

    More and more people are realizing that the social welfare state as it exists today is unjust.

  21. wmeyer says:

    Politicians, of whatever stripe, tend to be people who desire power, or the appearance of same. Republican or Democrat, the differences are small. What all voters must recognize is that the argument about left vs. right has become another canard. The spectrum of interest is bounded on one end by liberty, on the other by totalitarianism.

  22. Texas trad says:

    Whatever you see George Soros involved in, there is anti-Catholic activity. He absolutely controls and finances President Obama. This is a planned set up to discredit the U. S. Bishops before the media. I am so glad this was all discovered in advance.

  23. John V says:

    On page 6 of this e-mail, which was dated June 8th, Mr. Gehring wrote: “Reporters should consider asking about the Knights of Columbus . . . an organization with deep pockets lead [sic] by Supreme Knight Carl Anderson, who had a long career in Republican politics working with the late Rep. Jesse Helms and in the Reagan Administration.”

    So then EWTN reported: “At a June 13 press conference at the U.S. bishops’ spring general meeting in Atlanta, the archbishop was questioned by Jerry Filteau of the National Catholic Reporter about funding for the bishops’ campaign to defend religious liberty. Filteau said that he had heard ‘rumors’ that much of the funding for the bishops’ effort is coming from the Knights of Columbus, whose head, Carl Anderson, is a former Reagan administration official’ He suggested that there may be ‘a partisanship aspect to the whole thing.’”

    Coincidence?

  24. anilwang says:

    Annette, “a party that is pro-life and pro-social justice”.

    The situation is worse in Canada. One thing to keep in mind is that when Jesus separates the goats from the sheep, he will not ask you, “Did you vote for a candidate that will force everyone else pay for the poor?”. He’ll ask you, what did *you* do for the poor. Pushing the personal responsibility to “society” and “government” does no one any good. When governments take on too much, they have to cater to too many special interests, and as a consequence when they work best under those conditions, no-one is happy but no-one is miserable. When governments do not work well, one group is happy and others are miserable. That’s the situation we face right now.

    The solution is simple (but difficult to achieve now), get governments to focus on the essentials, and get individuals to pick up the slack. That way, the government can make everyone happy at what it can do best, and other more competent authorities can handle it at the lower level. As a Church, we believe in subsidiarity and we *should* be picking up the slack anyway (the early Christians certainly did, even picking abandoned babies off the shores and raising them
    as their own). We just need to be getting back to basics.

  25. wmeyer says:

    anilwang: You raise a point on which I have been harping to catechists and all: We are called to charity, an obligation given in Scripture, and nowhere do I find in Scripture that we may delegate that obligation.

  26. Imrahil says:

    Forgive me, but then I’d say that nowhere in Scripture do I find that we may use computers.

    There are many good arguments for doing charity personally (and doing charity consists in loving people, first; works of mercy have their right, too, fo course). But “impersonally is easier and we must not go for the easier way” is not one of them.

  27. Pingback: Media Backgrounder: Theologians at Major Catholic Universities Will Help You Knock the Fortnight for Freedom « Campus Notes

  28. wmeyer says:

    To clarify, my comment about delegation was not meant to suggest that giving to a charitable organization does not fulfill our obligation. However, in my view, the taking of our treasure in taxes is not a fulfillment of our obligation.

  29. SKAY says:

    I hope all of the Bishops and spokesmen are aware of this — and have a copy of it to show as they are being asked to answer these questions by the media.
    I agree Texas Trad. Soros is a Socialist –he not only owns Obama, he owns the Democrat Party.
    I saw a video of him speaking to a left wing gathering–he openly admitted that he would like to see a one world government and is actively working toward that. He has been trying to buy his way into influence within the Church and has been successful with some groups in order to “divide and conquer”. Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good is a group that comes to mind in my area.

    The Catholic vote helped elect Obama in the last election. I suppose he believes the Pelosi/Biden Catholics ARE the Church–so he could check off “the Catholic Vote” sheep by “amending” the mandate so to speak and move on to appease another group–as he tears up more of the Constitution.

    I see no problem with the head of the Knights of Columbus being a Republican–but I do see why Soros would try to use that as a wedge to divide the Church when it comes to the mandate. After all-it is his party that is trying to destroy the first ammendment.
    I will vote for Romney because it is clear what is ahead of us should Obama be re-elected. He absolutely believes he is above the Constitution and has proven that point. This very thought is something quite profound for those of us who are ordinary citizens of this country. He even said in an interview -before running for President-that he does not like the Constitution as written.
    Voting third party or staying home is not an option for me.

  30. Imrahil says:

    However, in my view, the taking of our treasure in taxes is not a fulfillment of our obligation.

    Dear @wmeyer, thank you for your answer. I believe it is: in the conscience of the taxpayer, insofar as the taxes happen to go beyond the needs for the upkeep of the commonwealth and the needs of justice, and happen to be used for charitable ends, and the taxpayer has the intention to contribute to these charitable ends by paying these taxes.

    Whether such taxes should or should not be collected is another question; but given that they are collected, it’d be overly burdensome to the decent taxpayer would they not fulfill these Christian obligations at all.

    Now should they be collected? I’m not so sure on that point. But I’m sure that the principle to be applied here is subsidiarity. To a certain degree it is justice that orders us to do almsdeeds, according to moral theologians; this at least may also be done by the State also, if that in a specific circumstance is not a breach of subsidiarity. It could easily be that in a Christian society (in the charitable respect this is unambiguously true of both Germany and, I guess, the United States, private sins not withstanding) this minimum could be extended by that amount which moral theologians qualify as obligatory charity.

    And it is important to note that the taking one occasion of sin (via not giving almsdeeds), whatever else to be said about it, is at least not in itself a bad thing (as some ulterior thought along the lines of “we have to collaborate to our Salvation and it is being shown in everyday life that the ones give almsdeeds and the others only pay taxes” might seem to suggest).

  31. wmeyer says:

    Imrahil, we are not so far apart. I agree that subsidiarity is the essential consideration. On that basis, I would argue that government, being never very close to either the problem, nor to the community, is a poor choice to implement any sort of care. And it follows, then, that the federal government, being so much further removed, is arguably the worst choice.

    As to whether we willingly surrender treasure in taxes for the care of the poor, I would argue that those who do have not had occasion to see at first hand how poorly these “solutions” work. And they have not, I am sure, found themselves in need of such “help”, or they would soon realize that the bureaus are very negative helpers.

    An example I have used before is of a family in the small town where I grew up. They were in perpetual need, as they preferred alcohol to cleaning supplies. However, they were nonetheless human for their failings, and my father would, when he needed something they could supply, turn to them for work they could do. They earned money, and were always ready to work hard. He also gave them food at times, as they could then gain some useful nourishment, not convertible to liquor. Knowing these people and their failings–something utterly absent from bureaucratic programs–shaped the charity he offered.