It came as no surprise to us when we found that U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker overturned Proposition 8, the 2008 California measure that defined marriage as between a man and a woman. In one ruling, Judge Walker discounted the votes of millions of Californians who believe in traditional marriage. It has never been the people that have voted for homosexual marriage, it’s always been lawmakers and unelected judges.

In his ruling, Walker found as fact that “religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.”  Walker’s unmitigating arrogance was evident when he decided that his ruling should not be reviewed by any other judges, believing that his ruling should be the end all be all.

In an interview with Catholic News Agency, Bill Donohue said that the Church’s teachings on homosexuality are shared by many religions throughout the world and that Walker’s arrogance “would be hard to top.” When asked about Walker’s citation of the document on the legal recognition of homosexual marriage signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, when he was head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Donohue said, “Listing the pope’s remarks in a judicial ruling designed to prove the harmfulness of Church teachings on homosexuality is invidious” and that it seeks to “stigmatize the defense of marriage.”

Although the ruling was not surprising, the fact that the express will of the people in the nation’s largest state was summarily ignored by one unelected judge is cause for alarm; in over 30 attempts, gay marriage advocates have never won in any state.

We knew from the get-go that this issue would land on the desk of the U.S. Supreme Court, and that now looms as the next step. There is always the option of an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, a step that may be necessary given the reality of judicial activism on the bench.

Recently on the front page of the website of Orlando Sentinel, there was a picture of a man and a woman posing as Joseph and Mary cradling a puppy (in lieu of baby Jesus). The caption above said, “Smile for the Camera?”, and below the picture it said, “Check out these awkward family photos.” We did so and determined that the Sentinelwas just being a little too cute.

When we first looked at this issue, we thought we’d give it a pass. But when we scratched a little deeper, we thought otherwise.

For example, clicking on the picture brought us to twenty-six “Awkward Family Photos,” with the Joseph, Mary and dog picture writ large (it appears as the eighth photo in the series). None of the other twenty-five photos ridicules any other religion; most of them are merely silly shots of family members.

Furthermore, the reader is directed to a site that features a book on this subject,Awkward Family Photos, the cover of which shows five family members awkwardly lying on top of each other.

In other words, the book on this subject does not highlight the photo mocking the Christian scene: the decision to do so was entirely the choice of the newspaper. This tells us more about the Orlando Sentinel’s idea of humor than the two authors of the book on this subject.

Recently, CNN fired Octavia Nasr for praising Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah on her Twitter account. Following his death, Nasr wrote that she was “sad” to hear of his passing and said that he was “One of Hezbollah’s giants I respect a lot.” While commenting on this story on AOL News, contributor Paul Wachter asked whether CNN should be consistent and fire anyone who praises Pope Benedict XVI “who covered up the clerical rape of young boys and whose anti-contraception proselytization has contributed to the deaths of millions from AIDS?”

The fact that Paul Wachter would compare Pope Benedict XVI to the anti-Semitic, pro-terrorist Fadlallah is despicable. But his ignorance makes his commentary truly astounding. Despite the ceaseless efforts of those in the media—in particular the New York Times—there is absolutely no evidence that the pope has covered up any instances of priestly sexual abuse.

Wachter is also wrong in saying that the pope has contributed to millions of deaths for denouncing the indiscriminate distribution of condoms. In fact, as Harvard professor Edward C. Green has said, “Many countries that have not seen declines in HIV have seen increases in condom use, but in every country worldwide in which HIV has declined there have been increases in levels of faithfulness and usually abstinence as well.”

It’s nice to learn that Wachter praises Fadlallah for being pro-woman. Inconveniently for him, his hero is also pro-terrorist.

Below is the calendar we followed in contacting various organizations in the New York tri-state area regarding the rally. All of them received a letter explaining why the rally was being held (we have included those entities which we have yet to contact).

May

May 12-13: Kick-off
May 14: Missionaries of Charity
May 17: Bishops of India
May 18: Indian Government Officials
May 19: Bishops of the Northeast
May 20: Bishops of the South
May 21: Bishops of the Midwest
May 24: Bishops of the West
May 25: New York City Mayor and Public Advocate
May 26: New York City Council
May 27: Governors in Tri-State Area
May 28: Legislators in Tri-State Area

June

June 1:   Announcement of Aug. 26 Rally
June 2:   Catholic Elementary Schools in New York
June 3:   Catholic Secondary Schools in New  York
June 4:   Catholic Colleges in New York
June 7:   Catholic Elementary Schools in New Jersey
June 8:   Catholic Secondary Schools in New Jersey
June 9:   Catholic Colleges in New Jersey
June 10: Catholic Elementary Schools in Connecticut
June 11: Catholic Secondary Schools in Connecticut
June 14: Catholic Colleges in Connecticut
June 15: Lay Catholic Professional Groups in Tri-State
June 16: Irish Lay Catholic Groups in Tri-State
June 17: Italian Lay Catholic Groups in Tri-State
June 18: Polish Lay Catholic Groups in Tri-State
June 21: German Lay Catholic Groups in Tri-State
June 22: Latino Lay Catholic Groups in Tri-State
June 23: Albanian Lay Catholic Groups in Tri-State
June 24: Knights of Columbus in Tri-State
June 25: Knights of the Holy Sepulcher in Tri-State
June 28: Knights of Malta in Tri-State
June 29: Catholic War Veterans in Tri-State
June 30: Catholic Daughters of America in Tri-State

July

July 1:   Ladies of Charity in the Tri-State
July 2:   Legion of Mary in the Tri-State
July 6:   Holy Name Societies in the Tri-State
July 7:   Indian Community Groups in the Tri-State
July 8:   Nuns and Brothers in the Tri-State

July 9:   Order Priests in the Tri-State
July 12: Parishes in Nassau County
July 13: Parishes in Suffolk County
July 14: Parishes in Manhattan
July 15: Parishes in the Bronx
July 16: Parishes in Queens
July 19: Parishes in Brooklyn
July 20: Parishes in Staten Island
July 21: Parishes in the Diocese of Albany
July 22: Parishes in Dutchess County
July 23: Parishes in Putnam County
July 26: Parishes in Rockland County
July 27: Parishes in Orange County
July 28: Parishes in Sullivan County
July 29: Parishes in Ulster County
July 30: Parishes in Westchester County

August

Aug. 2:   Ads in Tri-State Diocesan Newspapers
Aug. 3:   Parishes in Archdiocese of Newark
Aug. 4:   Parishes in Diocese of Trenton
Aug. 5:   Parishes in Diocese of Camden
Aug. 6:   Parishes in Diocese of Paterson
Aug. 9:   Parishes in Diocese of Metuchen
Aug. 10: Parishes in Archdiocese of Hartford
Aug. 11: Parishes in Diocese of Bridgeport
Aug. 12: Parishes in Diocese of Norwich
Aug. 13: Parishes in Ukrainian Diocese
Aug. 16: Non-Sectarian Allies
Aug. 17: Protestant Allies
Aug. 18: Jewish Allies
Aug. 19: Hindu, Muslim and Mormon Allies
Aug. 20: Talk Radio Nationwide
Aug. 23: Newspapers in Tri-State Area
Aug. 24: TV Stations in Tri-State Area
Aug. 25: AP Day Book
Aug. 26: Rally

Click here to view the application we submitted to the Empire State Building and the amended application noting a “policy” of not honoring religious figures.

In June, Time magazine ran a cover story on Pope Benedict XVI titled “Why Being Pope Means Never Having to Say You’re Sorry: The Sex Abuse Scandal and the Limits of Atonement.” Not only was the piece an unfair attack on the pope, but it was strewn with misinformation and falsehoods.

Article writers Jeff Israely and Howard Chua-Eoan demonstrated that they could have not only benefited by having a competent editor, but that they could have used a Catholic education growing up.

The story began by speculating whether Pope Benedict XVI would apologize for the behavior of abusive priests, yet in no time the authors quoted the pope apologizing for such priests. But that just wasn’t enough. It never is.

The reporters then got melodramatic: the pope can’t apologize for fear of damaging the magesterium and papal power. Begging the question: Why has he already done so?

The authors wondered why the pope hasn’t mentioned his own role in the scandal. There is a reason for that: no one, including those at the New York Times, has been able to nail him. But that didn’t stop Time from laying its seed.

Citing the pope’s apology regarding wrongdoing by some Irish priests—decades ago—Time posited that he didn’t apologize “for anything he or, indeed, the Holy See may have done, much less the mystical entity called the Church, the bride of Christ.” Why anyone would apologize for offenses he never committed was never explained: it’s just assumed the pope is guilty and, worse, refuses to admit it. This isn’t objective journalism—it’s an indictment.

The piece also asked, “Why didn’t the church simply report to the civil authorities the crimes its priests were suspected of committing?” For the same reason every other religious, as well as secular, institution did not: following the lordly liberal wisdom of the day, the accused was sent to therapy and then returned to his post. Similarly, the decision not to immediately laicize an offending priest in 1985 was not done for sinister reasons, as the article implied, but because of an age-sensitive policy (the priest was dumped two years later).

On the subject of papal infallibility, the authors appeared as clueless as their managing editor, Richard Stengal, who flubbed terribly during his interview on MSNBC promoting the story.

Those at Time need to get a clue and to quit with the lousy reporting.

In a recent interview with ABC-News reporter Diane Sawyer, scientist Stephen Hawking opined that human life is “insignificant in the universe,” and then went on to say that “there is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, [and] science, which is based on observation and reason.” He concluded by saying, “Science will win because it works.”

How any rational person could belittle the pivotal role that human life plays in the universe is a wonder, but it is just as silly to say that all religions are marked by the absence of reason. While there are some religions which are devoid of reason, there are others, such as Catholicism, which have long assigned it a special place.

It was the Catholic Church that created the first universities, and it was the Catholic Church that played a central role in the Scientific Revolution; these two historical contributions made Mr. Hawking’s career possible.

Reason, in pursuit of truth, has been reiterated by the Church fathers for nearly two millennia. That is why Hawking posits a false conflict: in the annals of the Catholic Church, there is no inherent conflict between science and religion. Quite the contrary: science and religion, in Catholic thought, are complementary properties. Ergo, nothing is gained by alleging a “victory” of science over religion.

Religion without reason, Pope Benedict XVI instructed us in his Regensburg address in 2006, leads to fanaticism. That much Hawking seems to understand. What he doesn’t get is its contra: science without faith also leads to disaster—the genocidal regimes in Germany, the Soviet Union, China and Cambodia being Exhibits A, B, C and D.

It was about a year ago—last August to be precise—when Showtime aired what was the most anti-Catholic television show in history, namely, a Penn & Teller episode on the Vatican. We took out ads in Hollywood publications; we made copies of the video and sent them to every bishop in the U.S.; we conducted a media campaign against the show; and we enlisted our members in the protest.

Well, it looks like we won a belated victory.

We recently learned that the ugly episode was not included in the DVD collection of Penn & Teller’s 2009 series of shows. Guess they got the message.

With great consternation, Penn Jillette (the talking half of the duo) made his confession in Vanity Fair.

In the last issue of Catalyst, we mentioned that Comedy Central was contemplating running a show this fall, “JC,” that promised to be trouble for Christians. The question remains whether a cartoon that mocks Jesus Christ will air. Here are some developments.

Brent Bozell, president of the Media Research Center and a member of the Catholic League’s board of advisors, put together a group, Coalition Against Religious Bigotry, that was organized explicitly to protest “JC.” On June 3, members of the group held a teleconference with many members from the media.

Joining Bozell were Bill Donohue, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, nationally syndicated talk radio host Michael Medved, Parents Television Council president Tim Winter and Rabbi Daniel Lapin of the American Alliance of Jews and Christians.

The teleconference received a great deal of media coverage. While a formal boycott was not announced, the case was made very clearly that it was not in the best interest of Comedy Central, which is owned by Viacom, to push this show. The purpose of the conference call was stated by Bozell as follows:

· Denounce “JC” and the concept of glorifying religious bigotry as Comedy Central openly mocks and disparages God and Christianity yet takes every precaution to not attack Islam

· Release the joint coalition letter to companies that have advertised on Comedy Central in the past, urging them to refrain from spending ad dollars on “JC” as it is “an abomination purported to be entertainment”

· Unveil an exclusive, four-minute video mash of some of Comedy Central’s most offensive portrayals of Jesus Christ and God to date as evidence of the kind of mockery we can expect from “JC”

· Announce when and how the coalition will release the names of those companies that have taken a position on “JC” advertising, and those who have not

We will keep you posted of how things unfold. The coalition has since been joined by many other groups. The fact that Catholics, Protestants and Jews are coming together to fight this show is encouraging, and the Catholic League is proud to be a part of it.

A lawsuit against the Vatican was filed recently in Louisville, Kentucky by attorney William McMurry seeking to depose Pope Benedict XVI. McMurry contends that officials of the Catholic Church in Rome, including the Holy Father, knew about cases of priestly sexual abuse and then covered them up.

It is, of course, a staple of anti-Catholic thinking that every priest on the face of the earth follows lockstep with the orders from the pope. It is also the calling card of anti-Catholic thought that every instance of priestly wrongdoing is known to the Holy Father and his inner circle.

The fact is that the Roman Catholic Church is among the most decentralized entities in the world, and it is positively preposterous to think that the pope sits around orchestrating cover-ups in places ranging from Louisville to London.

McMurry knows this as well, but having skimmed over $10 million for himself (out of a $25.7 million pot) from a 2003 settlement with the Archdiocese of Louisville, he can afford to be motivated more by ideology than greed at this point.

“I have yet to meet a Catholic, expert or otherwise,” McMurry said, “who does not believe that the Holy See has the absolute right to control the day-to-day activities of a bishop’s work.” Yet when even parents cannot possibly control the day-to-day activities of their children, only someone who is hopelessly naïve—or malicious—would contend that the pope is tweeting the bishops and keeping tabs on them all day long.

McMurry has three clients: one says he “thinks” the local bishop knew of his alleged abuse; another maintains that he was molested over three decades ago; and the third contends that a priest touched him through his pants pocket in 1928. If this is the best that McMurry can come up with, then he is bound to fail. Besides, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act makes it difficult to prosecute a head of state.

In another development, on June 29, the U.S. Supreme Court left standing a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that allows an Oregon man to try to hold the Vatican financially culpable for a case of priestly sexual abuse that occurred a half-century ago. Though the priest was laicized in 1966, the plaintiff, who says he was abused, is pursuing the case because he wants the Holy See to admit that the priest was an employee of the Vatican.

It should be noted that a month before this decision, the Obama administration sided with the Vatican holding that the Ninth Circuit erred in its ruling. We commended the Obama administration for being on the right side of the issue.

In both the Kentucky and Oregon cases, it is clear that vengeance, disguised as justice, is playing a major role. We will keep an eye on how these cases proceed.