Here’s a scenario worth contemplating: let’s assume that the federal government tries to censor the New York Times, and that critics of the newspaper take it to task for complaining that their “free speech” rights have been violated. Would not the Times be justly angered at the suggestion that their First Amendment right to free speech was being discussed as if it were their so-called free speech rights? Well, here’s how it handles the religious liberty rights of Catholics, now under fire from President Obama.

• Reporter Laurie Goodstein writes a story on “Bishops Open ‘Religious Liberty’ Drive” (11-15-11)
• An editorial slams Mitt Romney for “promising to defend the Roman Catholic Church’s ‘religious liberty’” (2-2-12)
• An editorial discusses the “phony crisis over ‘religious liberty’” (2-11-12)

Bloggers and other newspapers are also picking up on the “religious liberty” rights of Catholics (Pam’s House Blend, 2-10-12; Ira Chernus, religiondispatches.org, 2-21-12; an editorial in Vermont’s Brattleboro Reformer, 2-21-12).

The New York Times’ game of dumbing down the religious liberty rights of Catholics even extends to mocking the title of pro-life leaders. On Feb. 16, Richard Doerflinger, the associate director of the Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities of the bishops’ conference, was referred to in a news story as the “associate director of ‘pro-life activities.’”

It would be wrong to conclude that the Times always speaks derisively about religious liberty. In an editorial on Nov. 22, 2010, it pointedly said, “Mr. Obama respects religious liberty.” And on Sept. 19, 2011, it said, “Mayor Michael Bloomberg rightly stood up for religious liberty.” The issue? Bloomberg’s support for building a mosque at Ground Zero.

The report covers the following areas: activist organizations; the arts; business/workplace; education; government; and the media.

There are special sections as well: our exposé of the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests (SNAP); our response to a Rolling Stone article and a Philadelphia Inquirer editorial on the Archdiocese of Philadelphia; a reprint of our ads in defense of the Catholic Church that appeared in the New York Times and the Chicago Tribune; a lengthy analysis of the John Jay Report on Sexual Abuse; a detailed account of the attacks on Bishop Robert Finn by SNAP and the Kansas City Star; and a section on the War on Christmas.

Copies are available for $10 to the general public [click here]. Complementary copies were sent to those in government, education, religious organizations, the media, etc. It is the most authoritative summary of anti-Catholic incidents in 2011.

On February 15, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius said Catholic insurance carriers will not be given an exemption from the mandate requiring insurance companies to provide for contraceptive, abortifacient and sterilization services. She explained, “Religious insurance companies don’t really design the plans they sell based on their own religious tenets.” This is an outrageous smear.

Last month, Our Sunday Visitor ran a splendid article on this subject titled, “Investing with a Clear Conscience.” It listed the following companies as following Catholic investment principles: Ave Maria Mutual Funds; Christian Brothers Investment Services; Epiphany Funds; First Affirmative Financial Network; Investing for Catholics; LKCM Aquinas Funds; Prosperitas Wealth Management; and Trinity Fiduciary Partners.

The article also listed the six investment principles as laid out in the bishops’ 1991 statement on socially responsible investing (it was revised in 2003): Protecting Human Life; Promoting Human Dignity; Reducing Arms Production; Pursuing Economic Justice; Protecting the Environment; and Encouraging Corporate Responsibility.

Sebelius, of course, is a champion of partial-birth abortion, so she obviously fails the bishops’ test. That is her business. But she has no business misinforming the public about the honorable role played by many Catholic insurance companies.

The Catholic League uses Christian Brothers as its insurance carrier, and we will fight attempts by the Obama administration to undermine its integrity.

Rep. Elijah Cummings, the senior Democrat on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, expressed dissatisfaction today with the composition of the panel which was selected to testify on the religious liberty issues involved in the Obama healthcare mandate. He complained that Catholic groups like Catholics United were not asked to speak.

Similarly, the White House Blog lists Catholics United as a Catholic group that supports the mandate.

But Catholics United is nothing but a George Soros-funded anti-Catholic front group. As we have previously reported, Soros’ Open Society Institute has poured a ton of money into Catholics United.

In 2008, Archbishop Charles Chaput spoke for many bishops when he said that Catholics United was doing a “disservice to the Church.” In 2010 and 2011, it worked against the bishops by supporting abortion coverage in the Obama healthcare bill. It also supported efforts to censor the free speech rights of the Susan B. Anthony List in 2010 which had posted a pro-life billboard in Ohio. That same year it sided with anti-Catholics who applauded a vile video depicting large ants crawling all over Jesus on the Cross that was shown at the Smithsonian, a publicly funded museum.

Rep. Cummings and the Obama administration, along with many in the elite media (the New York Times being the worst offender), are intentionally deceiving the American people by casting Catholics United as a legitimate Catholic organization. It is neither Catholic nor an organization. Rather it is nothing more than an anti-Catholic letterhead funded by George Soros, a left-wing billionaire atheist who has long worked to subvert the Catholic Church.

Following her testimony yesterday before the Senate Finance Committee, Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) Kathleen Sebelius was asked whether she spoke to the bishops about the controversial mandate she is pushing. She admitted she did not. Then she said, “I know that the president has spoken to the bishops on several occasions.”

Sebelius is wrong. Bishop William Lori, who heads the bishops’ Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty, said this week that administration officials should have sat down with the bishops. “That certainly did not happen,” he said. Archbishop Timothy Dolan, who heads the bishops’ conference, met once with the president, and that was three months ago; the two phone calls he has had since were to inform him that the bishops’ religious liberty concerns would not be honored.

Under questioning from Sen. Orrin Hatch, Sebelius further admitted that HHS never subjected the religious liberty issues to a legal analysis, as requested by 27 senators. She also admitted that she never asked the Justice Department to consider this issue.

It gets worse. Today’s New York Times reports today that the administration announced the Obama mandate “before it had figured out how to address one conspicuous point: Like most large employers, many religiously affiliated organizations choose to insure themselves rather than hire an outside company to assume the risk.” As the Times points out, this is not a slight issue: 60 percent of all workers with health insurance are covered by a self-funded plan, and the figure jumps to 82 percent for large companies. And no one bothered to address this?

So they refused to consult with the bishops; they refused to weigh the First Amendment religious liberty concerns; and they refused to study how the mandate might impact self-insured companies. In other words, with characteristic arrogance, they just “winged it.” Wait until the Supreme Court hears all of this.

“As though Bill Donohue didn’t have enough to be cranky about.” That’s how Maureen starts her article. She had some good fun, at my expense, as she ripped into my criticism of Nicki Minaj’s obscene and bigoted skit at the Grammys.

Maureen wasn’t offended. Liberal Catholics never are. Oh, yes, they can get mighty angry when someone says Catholics can’t think for themselves. That kind of anti-Catholic bigotry bothers them immensely. But when their religion is trashed by celebrities, they reflexively take the opportunity to show how open-minded they are. Indeed, their tolerance for intolerance is infinite, provided, of course, that the object of intolerance is their own religion. But watch out if a bigot rips into Jews or Muslims—they will have none of it. Homosexuals, obviously, are also off-limits.

Trying to get inside the head of a liberal Catholic is not easy, but it sure is fun. That’s why Maureen is so irresistible.

Survey research was pioneered by Columbia University sociologists during World War II. By the time I was studying for my doctorate in sociology at New York University in the 1970s, the scientific nature of survey research had made great strides. But much depends on the methodology, as well as the questions asked.

The New York Times is reporting today that a majority of Catholics (it does not cite the percentage, either in the article or on the New York Times/CBS Poll website) “are at odds with the [Catholic] church’s official stance.”

A survey by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion and Public Life reports that 55 percent of all Catholics, and 63 percent of those who attend church weekly, are opposed to the Obama mandate.

A Rasmussen survey found that 77 percent of Catholics oppose the Obama mandate.

What’s going on? The Times asked respondents, “Do you support or oppose a recent federal requirement that private health insurance plans cover the full cost of birth control for their female patients?” Notice there was no mention of the religious liberty implications, nor of the issue of exemptions. It’s just about free services for women.

Pew asked whether there should be an exemption for religiously affiliated institutions that object. Similarly, Rasmussen asked whether “individuals should have the right to choose between different types of health insurance plans.”

In short, how the question is framed affects the answer. I will leave it to the reader to decide whether the Times asked about the real issue.