Mamdani rips Palestinian ‘genocide’ at St. Patrick’s Day event — after he botches answer on unified Ireland

Bill in the News (New York Post): Mamdani also thanked Irish New Yorkers for helping to take up the “fight for a future of justice.”

The remarks drew criticism from Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, who rapped Mamdani for politicizing St. Patrick’s Day.

“Mamdani is a master of the politics of victimization. He delighted his left-wing Irish friends by saying, ‘The story of the Irish, both in Ireland and in New York City, is at one time a story of oppression, of subjugation, and of discrimination,’” Donohue said in a statement. READ MORE HERE




MAMDANI RIPS OFF ST. PATRICK’S DAY

Bill Donohue

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani made an 11th-hour decision to march in the St. Patrick’s Day Parade, an event he previously eschewed for political reasons. But he couldn’t resist bringing his politics to bear at a breakfast he hosted at Gracie Mansion, kicking off the St. Patrick’s Day festivities.

Mamdani’s obsession with demonizing Israel was on full display. He whined about the “deafening silence from so many” about the “genocide” in Palestine. Thus did he hijack St. Patrick’s Day celebrations by turning them into a radical Muslim rant.

He fooled no one by inviting the former president of Ireland, Mary Robinson, to be there. She is a hard-core leftist who not only sides with the enemies of Israel, she sides with the enemies of the Catholic Church on matters sexual.

Mamdani is a master of the politics of victimization. He delighted his left-wing Irish friends by saying, “The story of the Irish, both in Ireland and in New York City, is at one time a story of oppression, of subjugation, and of discrimination.”

This is the mentality of the Left. He sees oppression everywhere, nicely teeing it up for guys like him to rescue victims from their oppressors. I have news for him: This is a happy day for the Irish, and we do not take kindly to those who want to wallow in negativity, or to those who seek to exploit it for political capital.

By the way, this is an Irish Catholic day, something Mamdani refuses to acknowledge. We know why.

Contact his deputy communications director, Lekha Sunder: Lsunder@cityhall.nyc.gov




SALUTE TO ST. PATRICK

Bill Donohue

[Note: We run this article each year in honor of St. Patrick]

The heroics of St. Patrick are not appreciated as much as they should be. He is the first person in history to publicly condemn slavery, and one of the first leaders to champion the cause of equal rights.

There is much to celebrate on March 17. Fortunately, his writings, though slim, are eye-opening accounts of his life: Letter to the Soldiers of Coroticus and Confession reveal much about the man. Along with other sources, they paint a picture of his saintliness.

Patrick was born in Britain in the 4th century to wealthy parents. It is likely that he was baptized, though growing up he did not share his family’s faith. He was an atheist.

When he was 15, he committed what he said was a grave sin, never saying exactly what it was; it appears it was a sexual encounter with a young girl. No matter, it would haunt him throughout his life.

At age 15 or 16 (the accounts vary), Patrick was kidnapped and enslaved by Irish barbarians. They had come to plunder his family’s estate, and took him away in chains to Ireland. While a slave, he converted to Christianity, praying incessantly at all hours of the day. After six years, he escaped, and made his way back home.

His family thought he was dead, and with good reason: no one taken by Irish raiders had managed to escape and return. St. Patrick biographer Philip Freeman describes how his family received him, stating “it was as if a ghost had returned from the dead.”

After he returned home, he had a vision while sleeping. He felt called to return to Ireland. This seemed bizarre: this is where he was brutalized as a slave. But he knew what Jesus had commanded us to do, “Love thy enemy.” He was convinced that God was calling him to become a missionary to Ireland. So he acted on it, despite the reservations of family and friends.

Patrick became a priest, practiced celibacy, and was eventually named a bishop. Contrary to what many believe, he did not introduce Christianity to Ireland, nor was he Ireland’s first bishop. But he did more to bring the
Gospel to Ireland than anyone, converting legions of pagans, especially in the northern parts of the island.

His missionary work in Ireland has been duly noted, but his strong defense of human rights has not been given its due.

No public person before him had denounced slavery, widespread though it was. Jesus was silent on the subject, Aristotle thought it was a natural way of life, and neither master nor slave saw anything fundamentally wrong with it. Patrick did.

Though he did not invoke natural law specifically, he was instinctively drawn to it. He taught that all men were created equal in the eyes of God, and that the inherent dignity of everyone must be respected.

Patrick did more than preach—he lashed out at the British dictator, Coroticus, harshly rebuking him for his mistreatment of the Irish. In fact, Patrick found his Irish converts to be more civilized than Coroticus and his band of thugs.

Patrick was way ahead of his time in the pursuit of human rights. Not only were men of every social status entitled to equal rights, so were women. In his Letter to the Soldiers of Coroticus, he scolds “the tyrant Coroticus—a man who has no respect for God or his priests.” More important, he made a startling plea: “They must also free Christian women and captives.” His reasoning showed the power of his faith when he said, “Remember, Christ died and was crucified for these people.”

He did not mince words. “So, Coroticus, you and your wicked servants, where do you think you will end up? You have treated baptized Christian women like prizes to be handed out, all for the sake of the here and now—this brief, fleeting world.”

What makes this all the more dramatic is the way the pagan world thought about women: the idea that women were equal to men was totally foreign to them. But the women understood what Patrick was saying, and gravitated to him in large numbers. The Christian tenet that all humans possess equal dignity had taken root.

Did the Irish save civilization, as Thomas Cahill maintains? Freeman thinks not—”it had never been lost.” But everyone agrees that had it not been for St. Patrick, and the monasteries that followed, much of what we know about the ancient world would not exist.

Indeed, it is difficult to fathom how classical Greek and Roman literature would have survived had it not been for the Irish monks who attracted students from many parts of Europe. They are responsible for preserving the great works of antiquity. And all of them are indebted to St. Patrick.

It is believed that he died on March 17, sometime during the second half of the fifth century. That is his feast day, the source of many celebrations in his honor. His impact extends beyond the Irish and the Catholic Church—human rights are a global issue—making him a very special person in world history.




MAMDANI UNSURE HE’S MARCHING IN ST. PAT’S PARADE

Bill Donohue

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani has not confirmed marching in the St. Patrick’s Day Parade. That’s to be expected given the way he treats Catholics.

He had clergy from many religions at his inauguration, but never invited Cardinal Timothy Dolan or any other priest. He had clergy from many religions at his February 6 Interfaith Breakfast, but never invited a priest. He refused to attend the installation of our new archbishop, Ronald Hicks, though virtually every other dignitary was there.

Why is Mamdani hesitant about marching in the St. Patrick’s Day Parade? It’s not the Irish he has a problem with—it’s the Catholic Church.

Mamdani is a big fan of abortion rights and LGBT rights, including the mutilation of the genitals of minors, politely called sex-reassignment surgery. The Catholic Church is opposed to both. Also, he is still unhappy that gays were not allowed to march in the parade under their own banner until 2015. For these reasons, he is reluctant to march.

Mamdani has marched in the following parades:

  • Lunar New Year Parade

           LGBT Contingent: Yes (since 2010)

  • Panamanian Day Parade (Brooklyn)

           LGBT Contingent: No

  • African American Day Parade

           LGBT Contingent: Yes (last marched in 2019)

  • Labor Day Parade

           LGBT Contingent: No

  • West Indian Day Parade

           LGBT Contingent: Yes (since 2015)

  • Indian Day Parade (Bellerose/Floral Park)

           LGBT Contingent: No

  • Dominican Day Parade

           LGBT Contingent: No contingent; LGBT activists marched in 2019

  • Puerto Rican Day Parade

           LGBT Contingent: Yes (since 1989)

  • Sikh Day Parade

           LGBT Contingent: No

  • Bangladesh Day Parade (Jackson Heights, Queens)

          LGBT Contingent: No

  • Phagwah Parade (Richmond Hill, Queens)

           LGBT Contingent: Yes (since 2016)

  • Pat’s For All Parade (Sunnyside, Queens)

           LGBT Contingent: Yes (since 2000)

Mamdani only makes a stink about gays not marching in the St. Patrick’s Day Parade. Given the way he dismisses Catholics, it would make sense if he skipped the big parade in 2026.

It’s not just Catholics he has a beef with.

Mamdani has never marched in the Salute to Israel Parade or the Veterans Day Parade, and his animus against the police and ICE is palpable. To top it off, he never stops talking about diversity and inclusion, but somehow that never seems to include Catholics, Jews, veterans or law enforcement. The man is a phony.

Contact his deputy communications director, Lekha Sunder: Lsunder@cityhall.nyc.gov




MUSLIM WOMAN QUITS TRUMP’S RELIGION PANEL

Bill Donohue

Sameerah Munshi has quit President Trump’s Religious Liberty Commission. She cited “two deeply troubling developments: the official removal of Carrie Prejean Boller for her deeply held beliefs about Palestine and the federal government’s illegal war against Iran, undertaken without clear constitutional or congressional authorization.”

The Council on American-Islamic Relations, (CAIR), rushed to defend both women, saying they were the ones who “actually stand up for religious liberty.” They commended Munshi for her courage and said it was “unconscionable” that the White House would remove Prejean for her remarks on “Israel’s genocide in Gaza.”

On February 11, the Catholic League called for the Religious Liberty Commission to oust Prejean Boller; minutes later it did. We did so for reasons that both Munshi and CAIR refuse to acknowledge.

In my news release about Prejean Boller, I noted that she is “a former Miss California and a convert to Catholicism. She does not run a Catholic organization, has no Catholic credentials as an author or instructor, and indeed represents no one but herself. For her to say, without qualification, that ‘Catholics do not embrace Zionism’ is presumptuous and arrogant.”

It just wasn’t just this remark that got Prejean Boller into hot water. She blamed Jews for killing Christ, again without qualification, and was known to show up at meetings wearing a Palestinian flag pin. In other words, she is an activist, not someone sincerely committed to religious liberty.

Munshi’s comment about the “illegal” war against Iran makes her sound sophomoric. There have been five wars declared by Congress in American history: War of 1812, Mexican-American War, Spanish-American War, World War I, and World War II. There is nothing illegal about U.S. operations in Iran.

We are delighted that both of these women are no longer on the panel. How they got by those doing the vetting remains a problem.




Lou Holtz and Our Lady on the Dome

Bill Donohue highly recommends an article by Fr. Wilson D. Miscamble written in First Things on former University of Notre Dame football coach Lou Holtz and his devotion to his Catholic faith. To read it, click here.




RHODE ISLAND’S SELECTIVE INTEREST IN SEXUAL ABUSE

Bill Donohue

Rhode Island is the latest state to demonstrate its selective interest in combatting the sexual abuse of minors. It is only interested in probing the Catholic clergy, having zero interest in probing the clergy in every other religion. Furthermore, it has no interest in investigating the on-going crisis in the public schools.

Therapists, coaches, camp staff, doctors, psychiatrists, those who work with the disabled, and every profession where adults regularly interact with minors, are given a pass.

The biggest abusers of minors are, without doubt, live-in boyfriends. But don’t expect Peter F. Neronha, Rhode Island’s attorney general, to go after them. Why? There’s no money in it. Also, the former Catholic likes going after the Catholic Church. As soon as he became AG, he set his eyes on the Church.

When blacks are subjected to disproportionate stops by the police, it is called racial profiling. What Rhode Island is doing to priests is religious profiling. Yet the media are silent about this egregious injustice. They wouldn’t be silent if Neronha investigated sexual harassment on the job, selecting only reporters to probe.

Neronha’s report covers cases of alleged abuse dating back to 1950, when Harry Truman was present and Elvis Presley was 15. It was determined that 75 accused members of the clergy (66 of whom were priests) were responsible for victimizing 300 minors.

Guess what else Neronha found? What every other investigation has found: 83 percent of the victims were male, and 74 percent of them were postpubescent. This means that homosexuals did most of the damage. Get it straight: When adult males have sex with postpubescent males, it’s called homosexuality, not pedophilia. But don’t expect Neronha or the media to report on this fact. The cover-up continues.

When did this happen? As always, it was during the sexual revolution, in the 1960s and 1970s. As I pointed out in my book, The Truth about Clergy Sexual Abuse: Clarifying the Facts and the Causes, libertinism as an idea was born in the 1960s and the acting out largely took place in the 1970s. That’s what Rhode Island found as well.

The last time there was a known instance of the sexual abuse of minors by the Catholic clergy in Rhode Island was 15-years ago in 2011. When was the last time a minor was violated in their public schools? Last year, when a school bus monitor allegedly sexually abused three special needs students. One was in kindergarten.

Is Neronha going to tackle the public schools? He should.

Ten years ago, when USA Today rated every state in the union on the sexual abuse of minors, it gave Rhode Island a “D.” When the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights investigated this issue during the 2017-2018 school year, it concluded that Rhode Island was one of the worst in the country; it ranked in the bottom ten. More recently, the Rhode Island KIDS COUNT, a statewide advocacy group, found that there were six allegations of sexual abuse in 2024.

The AG’s report reads as though the sexual abuse scandal is ongoing in the Catholic Church and that Neronha’s office did yeoman work in uncovering it. Wrong on both counts. We are talking about old cases where the bad guys are either dead or have been kicked out of ministry. Not one of the 75 members of the clergy mentioned in the report is in active ministry. Moreover, it was the Diocese of Providence did most of the data gathering, without which Neronha could not have issued his report.

One young person who is molested is too many. But when the Catholic Church has largely put this problem behind it, and when it is still extant in other quarters of society—especially in the public schools—it smacks of anti-Catholicism, pure and simple.

We are blanketing the Rhode Island media and lawmakers about this injustice. We are also contacting approximately 140 parishes in the state.

Contact Peter Neronha: ag@riag.gov




ST. PAT’S NYC PARADE STILL BANS PRO-LIFERS

Bill Donohue

Eleven years after the first gay group marched in New York City’s St. Patrick’s Day Parade, pro-life Catholics are still not allowed to march. The elites who run the parade are once again showing how little respect they have for the parade’s origins, which are rooted in Catholicism.

From 1762 to today, no homosexuals were ever barred from marching in the St. Patrick’s Day Parade. Beginning in the early 1990s, it was gays  who falsely claimed victim status because they were not allowed to march under their own banner. Neither were any other demographic or ideological group, including pro-life Catholics. This explains why from the mid-1990s to the mid-2010s, I went on radio and TV saying the parade was no more anti-gay than it was anti-pro-life (I had been asked by parade officials to be the their unofficial spokesman). That all changed in 2015.

In the late summer of 2014, I was asked by parade organizers if I would object if a gay group were allowed to march under its own banner in 2015. It was their parade, I said, but I had my integrity to protect: If gays can march under their own banner, then pro-life Catholics must be treated the same way. I was told by John Fitzsimons, a lawyer whom I considered to be a friend, not to worry—they would be included as well.

John lied. In short order, John Lahey, president of Quinnipiac University and vice chairman of the parade committee, announced that OUT@NBCUniversal, a group of gay NBC employees, would be marching (the chairman of the parade, John Dunleavy, a retired transit worker, was pushed aside by the elite sharks on the committee).

Lahey said other gay groups could also apply. More important, he said that no pro-life groups would be marching. Having been double-crossed, I pulled the Catholic League contingent from marching; we had been doing so for two decades.

So how did OUT@NBCUniversal get a monopoly on marching, when other gay groups wanted in? The NBC group never had to apply—it was selected. All the others were denied. The NBC group was chosen because another member of the parade ruling class, Francis X. Comerford, was the chief revenue officer at NBC and NBC televised the parade; he was also a former grand marshal of the parade. He made sure he got his boys to march, and no one else.

Why, after all these years, are pro-life Catholics not allowed to march under their own banner? John Aidan Byrne is the head of Irish Pro-Life USA. For the last decade he has petitioned the organizers of the St. Patrick’s Day Parade in New York City to allow his group to march under their own banner, but he has been summarily denied. He did so again recently. One parade organizer told him, “Ask City Hall.”

This is a deceitful dodge. City Hall does not run the parade. As the Supreme Court said in 1995, in a unanimous decision, this is a private parade and the organizers set their own rules. End of story. Or at least it should be. The only reason it is not the end of the story is because parade elites see no PR bounce from letting pro-life Catholics march. But they will lay down with gays, and in doing so they get what they really want—the applause of secular elites, whom they emulate.

In other words, although the parade celebrates its Irish Catholic origins, the potentates who run it want to neuter its Catholic roots. This explains why they don’t want pro-life groups to march, but are fine with gay groups. They know, as well as everyone else, that no religion has stood more consistently for the rights of the unborn than Catholicism. That’s why they distance themselves from pro-life Catholics—it invites secular elites to think they are like them. And that is not something they can stomach.




MET MUSEUM OF ART BOWS TO MUSLIMS

Bill Donohue

The Catholic League supports the accommodation of religion, whether it be in public or private venues. But we find it bizarre, if not troubling, when venues not known to accommodate religious expression decide to do so by singling out one religion. This is what the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City has done. The religion it is singling out is Islam.

On the first floor, in Room 961 of the Robert Lehman Collection, in between paintings of the Virgin Mary with baby Jesus, there is a standup sign that reads as follows:

For the month
of Ramadan
we invite you
to use this space
for prayer and
reflection

All are welcome

We have a hard time imagining the Met welcoming Catholics. But if we are wrong, it’s not too late for them to erect the following sign.

For the 40 days
of Lent,
we invite you
to use this space
for prayer and
reflection

All are welcome

What makes the Muslim-only policy even more inexplicable is how out-of-character it is. While the Met has long featured religious iconography, it also has a reputation of promoting raunch.

In October 2023, the Great Hall of the Met displayed gay bondage and sado-masochistic imagery. It used obscenities, and slogans such as, “May you fill yourself with lust,” to describe what the New York Post said were “images of seemingly naked males with their genitals blurred out and men standing over other men who appear to be wearing dog collars.”

One woman who spotted this “artistic creation” said, “I saw a wasteland ‘Mad Max’ scenario with people dressed in S&M gear and others who looked as if they were fornicating with the earth.” She said a portrayal of women was so sick that “It looked Satanic and demonic to me.”

Leaving aside the Met’s fondness for gay sexual expression, why does it feel obliged to welcome Muslims during Ramadan but not Catholics during Lent? Is this its idea of multiculturalism? We have long known that this ideology has less to do with paying tribute to religious and ethnic groups outside our Judeo-Christian heritage than it does in devaluing it.

The Met’s elite must feel very good about themselves. Their goal, no doubt, is to showcase their commitment to inclusion and diversity. But bowing to Muslims, by excluding Catholics, shows how morally bankrupt their commitment really is.

Contact Max Hollein, CEO of the Met: max.hollein@metmuseum.org




WHAT QUALIFIES AS BEING “MORALISTIC”?

Bill Donohue

A new Pew Research Center survey of 25 countries found Americans are “especially likely to view fellow citizens as morally bad.” Indeed, 53 percent of U.S. adults say Americans “have bad morals and ethics.” Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Much depends on the behavior being judged, as well as the judges.

At the top of the list, more Americans view married people having an affair to be morally unacceptable than any other behavior in the survey. It was followed by using marijuana, viewing pornography, gambling, having an abortion, homosexuality, drinking alcohol, getting a divorce or using contraceptives, in that order.

The authors of the survey use terms like being “moralistic” in reference to being judgmental. Similarly, they say such persons “are inclined to judge various behaviors to be immoral or sinful.” Though they do not say so explicitly, it is commonplace in liberal circles to speak negatively of those who are particularly “moralistic.”

Now it is true that some people are extremely judgmental about any behaviors they find unacceptable. At the other extreme, where is the virtue in not being “moralistic” about anything? Take abortion.

The public is split on this issue: 32 percent find abortion to be morally unacceptable; 30 percent say it is morally acceptable; 21 percent believe it is not a moral issue. All are judgmental, including those who judge it not to be a moral issue. But in elite quarters, which are overwhelmingly liberal, the moralizers are the ones who find it to be morally unacceptable.

In 1920, Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, wrote that the “most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” Would that be scored as “moralistic”? If not, why not?

A few years ago, we were ordered to wear masks, even though many who crafted this edict refused to do so themselves. District attorneys ordered those who committed serious crimes to be released as soon as they were caught. Illegal aliens invaded our country, a direct result of public policy. The movement to decriminalize prostitution is gaining. Teachers who call a girl who falsely calls herself a boy as “she” or “her” are punished.

Are those who made these decisions paragons of virtue, or are they guilty of being “moralistic”? We know what the mainstream media think, but were they right?

Being excessively judgmental is problematic, but making highly judgmental decisions, while pretending not to be “moralistic,” is nauseating. At issue is not the behaviors being judged; it is the ideological makeup of the judges.