Spear’s Obfuscation
Britney Spears, following in the footsteps of her mentor Madonna, has chosen to use the Catholic Church as a launching pad for some cheap, controversial publicity to market her new album release. While Spears posed in several pictures that depict her seducing a priest in the confessional, you have the usual suspects in the press eagerly anticipating a reaction from Church representatives. In walks William Donahue (for whom I have respect along with the belief that he does as best he can) of the Catholic League who proceeds to launch a bunker buster Scud by taking a personal swipe at Spears.
The conundrum on how to fulfil our obligation to protect the Church from slander and abuse while not feeding in to the hands of the desperate publicity hounds and those who take joy in wounding the Church is nothing short of frustrating. In my opinion, a great place to start would be to focus mainly on the issue at hand and not on the perps themselves. Given the fact that there will always be attacks at some level aimed at the Church, we must not only do our best to avoid doing any collateral damage which may feed the fire of anti-catholicism but also train ourselves to remain calm, couragous and sincere in our defense of Catholics and the truths within the Church. Easier said than done, I know. That’s not to say that from time to time I haven’t indulged in the guilty pleasures of seeing Donahue giving them hell.
.jpg)
In all likelihood, Britney Spears doesn’t have the intellectual horsepower to understand what she’s doing with that “promo.”
She was “guided” into that decision by far more evil people than she ever will be–the genuine Church-haters in Hollywood and/or NYC.
Comment by dad29 — October 30, 2007 @ 1:52 pm
This stuff has short shelf-life, thank God.
Comment by monica — October 30, 2007 @ 4:15 pm
Horrible!
Comment by mrs jackie parkes — October 31, 2007 @ 8:18 am
Well … we’re all in a heap of trouble if we need protection from Britney. Her life is a shambles and her career is heading for the toilet. Bill Donohue’s position on this would seem to lack credibility; he did defend Deal Hudson when the prof was going after co-eds with booze and sex.
Sometimes it’s best to say nothing. In BS’s case, she’ll go away in fifteen minutes. And in Donohue’s case, I’d hope he’d save us from further embarassment.
Comment by Todd — October 31, 2007 @ 9:07 am
“And in Donohue’s case, I’d hope he’d save us from further embarassment.”
–Todd
I think it inadvisable, Todd, to use the first person plural when what you really want to say is “me” not “us”…as in “I’d hope that he’d save me from further embarrassment.
Todd, I am not embarrassed by an ocaasional gaffe from William Donahue. We all owe him a great debt of gratitude, whereas in your case….
Comment by John Hetman — October 31, 2007 @ 10:13 pm
Todd’s right. Donahue is a total embarrassment. Why should we get mad over a depiction of a stupid pop star? And most level-headed people wouldn’t be mad over it. But the media wants the stereotypical angry Christian, and Donahue always jumps at the chance to give them the reaction they want. Now more of America’s encounter with Catholicism will be Donahue on the news channel screaming about “queers” or “Hollywood Jews” or something. How sad that is.
Comment by Gavin — November 1, 2007 @ 2:04 pm
Our Priests represent Christ to Catholics–I truly believe Britney has no clue–but wants the publicity–and no better way than to “mock” Jesus, in one of our most precious gifts–the Sacrement of Confession. She alludes to the fact that her sexuality is so alluring that those who give their entire lives dedicated to our Lord, would so easily submit to her “irrisitable” temptations–I don’t think so Britney.
Should we be outraged–Yes! If she mocked Islam–she would be dead by now! But, they go for the “safe” Christians.
Comment by tara — November 1, 2007 @ 4:18 pm
Gavin -
While I am not a fan of Donahue’s style, this case aside, his work in defense of the faith is laudable. I can only assume that your libelous attributions to him (i.e. suggesting that he would scream about “queers or Hollywood Jews” reflects your ignorance of his work and character. If it not be ignorance then it must be disingenuity. In either case, it is hard to escape the impression of malice on your part.
Donahue is justified in his outrage over the denigration that Hollywood and the media regularly foists upon Catholics. Failure to understand his reaction in this case would seem to reflect either a lack of understanding of the meaning of the Sacrament of Holy Orders or a lack of belief in its truth; to demean a priest who is sacramentally/ontologically configured to Christ is to demean Christ Himself. To lack this understanding or belief necessarily removes one from the qualifications to judge Donahue’s response as a Catholic.
In the end, a knowledgeable and faithful Catholic will indeed be angered over this continued assault on his faith, indeed on Christ Himself. He will understand and share Donahue’s concern though he may disagree with his methods of carrying out his duty, as ever Catholic has, to defend his faith.
Comment by David — November 1, 2007 @ 6:51 pm
Thanks for the reply and attempted correction, but I do think Donohue has been an embarrassment to Catholicism in general at times. His defense of Deal Hudson was inopportune, mean-spirited, and considering Hudson’s subsequent fall, not terribly prudent.
Comment by Todd — November 2, 2007 @ 1:05 pm