Walking off a short pier is an intellectual/non ad hominum response?
Only on FR does that pass for intelligent discourse.
I will ask others who actually read the Catholic League blog what they think.
It’s not an ad hominem attack. It’s a recommended course of action.
I’ve read Donahue on the recent scandals, and criticisms of Donahue, as well, including statements to the effect that he knows on which side his bread is buttered, which would give some motive for his actions.
But in his case, although it would be easy to impute motives ranging from nefarious to even worse, I’m not very concerned with motive.
I see what he writes. Like many other defenders of the indefensible, he has focused on the abuse of minors [and, now, of “vulnerable persons”] and said, “but abuse is down!”
However, he ignores the proximate cause studiously. So, what he has to say becomes irrelevant, because he’s no longer addressing the real problem. I’ve seen a lot of this. There’s james martin, massimo fagioli [a rough translation of his name is “maximum beans”], that austen guy. They also decry the further “abuse of minors [and the newly-described category of vulnerable persons]” but either ignore or actually denounce as “homophobia” the identification of the deeper cause.