Exalted Cyclops John Algernon Domin
The Catholic Diocese of Providence, under the guidance of Bishop Thomas Tobin, is not afraid to voice its opinion about a wide range of topics.
The church or the bishop has stated its position on everything from marriage equality and women’s reproductive rights to issues as trivial as the holiday/Christmas tree non-controversy and the cross on public land in Woonsocket. The Bishop went on the John DePetro Show to call President Obama’s thoughts concerning gay marriage “creepy and disturbing” and to call the entire RI Congressional Delegation “immoral.”
Given this record of impassioned moral outrage at issues great and small, why is the church silent on the issue of Domin Avenue in Smithfield, Rhode Island?
Domin Avenue, for those new to the story, is named for John Algernon Domin, the Exalted Cyclops of the RI Ku Klux Klan in 1928. Domin was not just some rank and file member of the terrorist organization, he was a leader and spokesman and owned the property where rallies were held and crosses were burned. Under his leadership the Klan attempted to take over 3 armed militias of the National Guard, in expectation of a coming war between Protestants and Catholics.
You see, back then there weren’t so many black people living in Rhode Island, so the Klan vented its hatred on Catholics and immigrants (Not that it neglected the few black people it could find. The Klan was held responsible for “torching an African American school in Scituate, Rhode Island.“) At this point in history the Irish and the Italians and other immigrants were mostly Catholic and just like today, immigrants bear the brunt of the blame for whatever ills the society faces.
Retired Colonel Roger Schenck, the man responsible for discovering the Domin Ave connection to the KKK, wondered why Bishop Tobin and the Providence Diocese, known for its outspoken opinion on a wide range of subjects, (Tobin recently weighed in on the replacement refs in the NFL, for instance) would remain silent on the issue of a street named for an anti-Catholic terrorist hate monger. He wrote a letter to the Bishop and received a short, non-specific reply from the Diocese Director of Communication Michael K. Guilfoyle:
Thank you for writing to Bishop Tobin relative to the matter before the Town Council in Smithfield, Rhode Island. As you know, this particular issue has received a great deal of attention before Smithfield residents and the Town Council. I understand that those on both sides of the matter relative to changing the name of the street in question have stated their concerns before the Council.
Thanks for your email. I assume by your answer that the Diocese does not intend to take a stand to support changing the name of a street memorializing John Algernon Domin who headed an evil organization that focused much of its hate against Catholics. The Diocese should be leading the charge to change the name but instead has chosen to remain neutral. I wonder who the Diocese is trying not to offend.
Mr. Schenck – Thank you for your reply. Please know that the diocese does not condone the actions of such organizations. We are monitoring the matter.
I don’t get it. The Catholic Church takes a firm stance on many issues, some of which are very controversial, including abortion, contraception, homosexuality, gay marriage, euthanasia, and the death penalty, but the diocese will not take a stance against the name of a street memorializing Ku Klux Klan Grand Cyclops John Algernon Domin who led an evil organization that focused much of its hatred against Rhode Island’s Catholics. The Diocese may not condone the actions of such organizations, but remaining silent in this instance, as the Diocese has chosen to do, says the diocese is ambivalent, complacent or just does not care if the Domin Avenue name changes or remains. You say you are monitoring the matter. That may sound good to some people, but what good will it do? It will not matter how many people you have monitoring the matter as it works its way to the town council meeting, if, at that meeting, the council votes to retain the Domin Avenue name. It will be too late at that point to do anything, but I suppose Rhode Island Catholics will have some consolation in knowing that the diocese monitored the matter.
Michael Guilfoyle was contacted for this post but did not respond.
So now you want the Catholic Church involved in government decisions? You’re sending out mixed messages here.
Nothing I said in this post indicates that I want the Catholic Church to be involved in government deciions. I can’t speak for Roger Schenck, whose ideas on this issue are expressed above. My main point is that I’m surprised that the Catholic Church has decided to not weigh in on this issue, considering how vocal they are on so many others.
I would prefer strict separation of church and state, but that would not prevent anyone in any capacity from expressing their opinions publicly, it would only prevent people from enforcing their religious views through the force of law.
No mixed message is intended.
“So now you want the Catholic Church involved in government decisions? You’re sending out mixed messages here.”
Oh, so it’s okay for the Church to get involved in all the other government issues except this one? Really?
Frankly I think the Church should say what it wants on any issue and also lose it tax exempt status. It should have lost it a long time ago.
The idea that the Catholic Church is a consistent moral compass on issues has long since left the world of reality and is now resides squarely in the world of wishful thinking.
“Frankly I think the Church should say what it wants on any issue and also lose it tax exempt status.”
You’d be opening a can of worms if that ever happened. Think of all the other tax exempt organizations that would be crushed. I am not Catholic nor religious but I don’t see the church as any different than any other organization pulling strings and there are plenty of them.
There’s no money in it for the Church. Abortion, marriage equality, these are state-wide issues that inflame passions in the flock and boost church coffers. How many congregants are going to be moved to fork over cash to advocate re-naming a street in Smithfield.
If Bishop Tobin doesn’t see any money in it, he’s not going to touch the issue. In my observation, money (or power) is the only thing that motivates Tobin.
Steve – Considering how vocal you are on so many issues, why don’t you publicly weigh in on on the documented fact that Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was a well known racist and eugenicist who spoke at a KKK rally? (There are even pictures documenting Margaret Sanger there.) If you have spoken out about this, then I apologize! To see more on Margaret Sanger racists eugenicist practices please watch this documentary, from 1:30 in the video on: www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUASluJJFvI&feature=relmfu
This video, from around 7:00 in the video on, gives more great information on the eugenics agenda and racism of Planned Parenthood and Margaret Sanger,
including Sanger and the KKK: www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuthEinnxmw
As “cailin rua” says in the next comment, this thread has gone a bit off track. I considered your comments very seriously, Kara, and decided to answer here, rather than post a long response in the comments or write a long post on RI Future, which concerns itself with more current issues.
Thank you for your comments.
@Kara D. Russo Young
Naomi Rogers had a great deal to say about Margaret Sanger and eugenics at tonight’s Action Speaks:
www.actionspeaksradio.org/2012/05/griswold.html
If you weren’t able be there you can download the whole discussion in ten days. It was a very interesting presentation. I forget the others mentioned along w/ Sanger but W. E. B. DuBois, according to Rogers, was among those who supported eugenics research at the time. Rogers said the issue was complex.
Eugenics is still a concern today. See J. Michael Bailey and Aaron Greenberg’s paper on parental rights in relation to theoretically determining a fetus’s sexual orientation; where they conclude that it would be morally acceptable to choose the sexual orientation of fetuses by aborting those determined to be predisposed toward homosexuality.
Of course, Bailey, even though he understands implications which are not theoretical at all does not touch on the very real subject of fetuses who are found with genetic intersex variations – such variations as androgen insensitivity syndrome, congenital adrenal hyperplasia, gonadal dysgenesis, chromosomal variations, etc. Many fetuses are screened for these variations and then the choice is made to abort, based on prejudice and bad advice – homophobia and transphobia. Such practices will result in a decrease in biological diversity and could eventually make humans less adaptive as a species. Without Alan Turing we might have lost WWII, etc.
Glad you brought Sanger up. Eugenics is a very complex and interesting subject. This thread seems to have gone off track, though.
I wonder if he would have had a better chance at getting a response if he contacted a church in Smithfield.