In 2006, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors issued a resolution condemning the Catholic Church for “meddling” in the City’s internal affairs. The infraction? The Church is opposed to gay adoption; San Francisco favors it; ergo, the Church is bigoted.

Simply because Cardinal William Levada, at the time archbishop of San Francisco, spoke out against placing children for adoption in homosexual households, the gay-friendly Board of Supervisors declared his position to be “hateful,” “absolutely unacceptable to the citizenry of San Francisco,” “insulting and callous.” Enter the Catholic League and the Thomas More Law Center of Ann Arbor, Michigan.

The Catholic League supplied the plaintiffs and the Thomas More Law Center provided the litigation. We sued by arguing that our constitutional rights had been violated when the government showed expressed hostility to Catholicism: the government, we contended, was supposed to be neutral.

Our side lost last June when a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Board of Supervisors had not acted unconstitutionally.

But on November 5, the full federal appeals court ruled to put that decision aside, holding that the case should be decided by an 11-judge panel for rehearing.

We are hopeful that upon a full hearing, our position will be vindicated. If we win, it will be historic.

Is President Obama for or against abortion coverage in the health care bill? The guessing game is over.

On September 30, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops sent a letter to the U.S. Senate saying, “So far, the health reform bills considered in committee, including the new Senate Finance Committee bill, have not met President Obama’s challenge of barring use of federal dollars for abortion.”

We now know that President Obama—who is lobbying to excise the abortion restrictions that the bishops wanted—has betrayed the bishops.

Here is how New York Times reporter Robert Pear put it on November 10: “President Obama suggested Monday that he was not comfortable with abortion restrictions inserted into the House version of major health care legislation, and he prodded Congress to revise them.” Although Obama spoke out of both sides of his mouth in his ABC News interview, Pear’s statement is an accurate reflection of the president’s position.

The manly thing for the president to do would be to state the obvious: his love for abortion rights brooks no compromise. But he won’t do so, choosing instead to play the same old shell game he’s been playing all along. And he is not alone. For months, we have been told that the bill does not cover funds for abortion, yet if that were true, there would have been no need for the Stupak amendment, and no resistance to it.

This has been a great moment for the bishops, and for Catholics generally, but the fight is not over. It’s important that those on both sides know exactly who the players are on each team.

The end of October proved to be a wild time for the Catholic bashers. Perhaps anticipating Halloween, they unleashed a fury. What was most noticeable was the origins of the attacks: they came from the MSM, or mainstream media. Specifically, they came from some of the most influential newspapers in the nation.

On October 28, in the Washington Post blog, “On Faith,” English atheist Richard Dawkins took after the Catholic Church by claiming that it was “surely up there among the leaders” as “the greatest force for evil in the world.” He labeled the Eucharist a “cannibal feast,” adding that “possession of testicles is an essential qualification to perform the rite.” These aren’t the words of a person who disagrees with the Catholic Church. These are the words of a bigot.

Dawkins also blamed the Church for sending missionaries “out to tell deliberate lies to AIDS-weakened Africans” regarding condoms. The Church’s outreach to Anglicans, he said, makes it “a common pimp,” noting that those who convert “will be joining an institution where buggering altar boys pervades the culture.” It must be difficult for this Brit to see all the Anglicans lining up single file to bolt from his nation’s official religion for Catholicism.

The next day, a Los Angeles Times editorial said that “church leaders, including popes, have changed their thinking over the years about everything from usury to the culpability of Jews for the Crucifixion….” It concluded, “You don’t have to be Catholic (or Anglican) to realize that society as a whole would be better off if the church’s views of women and gays underwent a similar evolution.” In other words, the problem with America is that the Catholic Church doesn’t take its cues from the deep thinkers in L.A.

The following day, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd recalled that when she was in grade school, “Nuns were second-class citizens then and–40 years after feminism utterly changed America—they still are.” She called Pope Benedict XVI the “uber-conservative pope,” a.k.a. “God’s Rottweiler,” who was once “a conscripted member of the Hitler Youth.” She also accused the Church of enabling “rampant pedophilia.” Amazing how this talented writer is factually wrong about everything.

James Carroll in the Boston Globe completed the fourth consecutive day of attacks by calling the outreach to Anglicans “a cruel assault,” “an insult to loyal Catholic liberals” and “a slap at women and homosexuals.” He characterized the outreach as a “preemptive exploitation of Anglican distress.” Question: Why would an ex-priest care who his former religion was welcoming in? And why are Catholic liberals insulted to learn of new members? Would they be happy if more left? Finally, why would women and gays claim victim status because unhappy Anglicans are looking for a new home?

Bill Donohue did not hold back in his assessment of this onslaught: “These deranged comments—all voiced in America’s premier newspapers—demonstrate that anti-Catholicism is the most virulent expression of bigotry in the U.S. It also shows why these newspapers, quite unlike the Catholic Church, are dying. As for the writers, they need to go to church. Either that or check into an asylum.”

Dawkins is perhaps the world’s most famous atheist. The editorial board of the Los Angeles Times is occupied by full-throated secularists. Maureen Dowd is one of those “raised Catholics” whose specialty is whining. And James Carroll is so angry at himself for  joining the priesthood that he lives every moment seeking revenge.

What’s also sad, and a telling commentary on contemporary anti-Catholicism, is that these newspapers thought such rubbish was worth publishing.

This year’s Election Day results provided faithful Catholics with confidence that their values are shared throughout the nation. Indeed, it was a big night for Catholic values.

The Catholic Church led the fight in Maine against those seeking to reinvent marriage, and won: the vote was 53-47 in favor of repealing the state’s gay marriage law. We gave Bishop Richard Malone much deserved credit for fighting against those who sought to restructure this vital institution. Those who favor the right of two men to marry are now 0 for 31 in the states. The people have spoken and the time has come for the homosexuals to pack it in.

Those who champion gay marriage and abortion-on-demand lost in New Jersey and Virginia, which posted a couple more wins for Catholic values. Jon Corzine supports the right of two men to marry and is a radical on the question of abortion and was beaten by pro-life Chris Christie in the New Jersey gubernatorial race. Creigh Deeds of Virginia is worse: he once opposed partial-birth abortion but later switched in favor of it; similarly, he said he was opposed to gay marriage but then campaigned against a state constitutional amendment to ban it. Good thing he was defeated in the state’s race for governor by Bob McDonnell. In any event, the defeat of Corzine and Deeds is a victory for marriage and children.

It was a big night for Catholic values. We hope everyone gets the message.

In late October, the Vatican announced a new process for disaffected conservative Anglicans to join the Roman Catholic Church. Some of the newspaper coverage was okay, but there were others that completely misrepresented the outreach of the Church.

The opening sentence in the Vatican’s October 20 statement said, “With the preparation of an Apostolic Constitution, the Catholic Church is responding to the many requests that have been submitted to the Holy See from groups of Anglican clergy and faithful in different parts of the world who wish to enter into full visible communion.” Indeed, at least two dozen Anglican bishops, as well as many of the rank-and-file, petitioned the Vatican for assistance.

Despite this fact, several news stories maintained that the Vatican lured and bid for Episcopalians to join the Roman Catholic Church. This is complete nonsense.

An October 20 story on the New York Times website started the mantra with a headline, “Vatican Bidding to Get Anglicans to Join Its Fold.” The first sentence of this story, repeated in the following day’s newspaper version, said, “In an extraordinary bid to lure traditionalist Anglicans en masse….” Not surprisingly, the Boston Globe, which is owned by the Times, followed suit and carried the same story. The Washington Poststarted its story by saying, “In a remarkable bid to attract disillusioned members of the Anglican Communion….”

On October 20, the Associated Press ran its first story on the subject and did not use such language. But after reading the Times’ gospel, on the following day it ran the headline, “Vatican Seeks to Lure Disaffected Anglicans.”

The October 21 Christian Science Monitor asked if the Vatican would now try to “lure” Africa’s Anglican bishops, saying that the day before Rome “launched its bold bid” for Anglicans to join.

The online newsletter Dissident Voice said that the “Roman Church is catering to the homophobes in the Anglican formation” and that it was a “masterstroke of corporate raiding.” Another online publication, Religion Dispatches, said that the Vatican was moving to “shore up its market share” and called it a “theological scandal.”

A week after the Vatican’s announcement, the British newspaper The Guardian ran a commentary entitled, “The Vatican thirst for power divides Christianity and damages Catholicism: The astonishing efforts to lure away Anglican priests show that Pope Benedict is set on restoring the Roman imperium.”

Happily, there were a few exceptions to the media Groupthink, e.g., the Pittsburgh Post Gazette and the Washington Times. Both of these newspapers did not partake in the Catholic baiting and reported the story accurately.

Why the Catholic baiting charge? Because reporting like this feeds the stereotype that the conniving Vatican has embarked on another one of its legendary power grabs. This is pure bunk, as any independent-minded source would acknowledge.

But stories like these beg the question: Who was the Vatican in a bidding war with?

The November 11 New York Times ran an editorial on “zero tolerance” policies and the trouble they can cause.

Looking back at the “zero tolerance” policy for school misconduct that the Congress adopted in 1994, the New York Times opined that it was a “reasonable step” at the time. But it now says that this policy “has been disastrous for young people,” and cited many problems attendant to its implementation. The editorial made sense.

Regrettably, the New York Times did not pronounce against the problems inherent in all “zero tolerance” policies. For example, on April 25, 2002, an editorial in the New York Times criticized the bishops for not making good on their “zero tolerance” proposal for dealing with cases of priestly sexual abuse. Referring to newly announced strictures, the Times said, “Unfortunately, these recommendations stopped short of a zero-tolerance policy for all abusive priests, an issue on which there appears to have been strenuous disagreement.”

In the same piece the Times said, “We hope that Cardinal Theodore McCarrick was correct in saying that the pope’s own remarks, especially his comment that there is ‘no place’ in the priesthood for child abusers, suggests that a zero-tolerance policy may eventually take shape. It should.”

The problem with all “zero tolerance” policies is twofold: their absolutist language and their universal application. By definition, they never allow for nuance, for mitigating circumstances, or shades of gray. Just as there is a difference between a student who knifes a classmate and one who bullies an overweight kid, there is a difference between a rapist and a fondler. But in the eyes of “zero tolerance,” all four offenders should at least be banished.

The New York Times should now write an editorial criticizing the adoption of all institutional “zero tolerance” policies. It should not matter whether the institution is educational, religious, financial, journalistic, etc. What should matter is the nature of the policy itself.

On November 3, the Los Angeles Times wrote an article on a health care bill in the Senate. The following quote appeared in that story:

“Backed by some of the most powerful members of the Senate, a little-noticed provision in the healthcare overhaul bill would require insurers to consider covering Christian Science prayer treatments as medical expenses. The provision was inserted by Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) with the support of Democratic Sens. John F. Kerry and the late Edward M. Kennedy, both of Massachusetts, home to the headquarters of the Church of Christ, Scientist.”

The following are past quotes from Sen. Kerry:

“There is a separation of church and state in America and we have prided ourselves about that all of my lifetime, all of our history.”

“I believe that I can’t legislate or transfer to another American citizen my article of faith.”

The following are past quotes from the late Sen. Kennedy:

“The separation of church and state can sometimes be frustrating for women and men of deep religious faith. They may be tempted to misuse government in order to impose a value which they cannot persuade others to accept.”

“I do not assume…that my convictions about religion should command any greater respect than any other faith in this pluralistic society.”

Though it wasn’t their Catholic faith, it seems that finally Kerry and Kennedy found a religion they could publicly endorse and whose beliefs they find worthy of a federal subsidy.

In a piece from the October 27 edition of the New York Times, Adam Liptak—theTimes’ Supreme Court correspondent—referred to marriage as “opposite-sex marriage” in a piece on the battle over gay marriage. Referring to attorney Charles J. Cooper, who is pressing the case against recognition of gay marriage, Liptak wrote, “The government should be allowed to favor opposite-sex marriages, Mr. Cooper said, in order ‘to channel naturally procreative sexual activity between men and women into stable, enduring unions.’”

When two men want to get married, they call it “same-sex marriage,” but how many of us have heard of marriage being labeled “opposite-sex marriage”? Well, that’s exactly the way the New York Times is playing it.

We did a Lexis-Nexis search and found that this occasion was only the tenth time theNew York Times has ever used the term “opposite-sex marriage,” and only the fifth time it appeared in a news story (some columnists and letter writers have employed it). The first time anyone appeared to have used the term was in the 1990s: an editorial in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch in 1994; a Yale Law Journal article that same year; an article by Andrew Sullivan in 1996 in the New Republic; and so on. Which raises the question: Is this the start of one more round of corrupting the English language?

Here’s how it will play out in the classroom: kindergartners will be told that some adults choose same-sex marriage and some choose opposite-sex marriage. There is no moral difference—it’s just a matter of different strokes for different folks. What will not be mentioned, of course, is that some male-on-male practices are dangerous. Nor will it be pointed out that only so-called opposite-sex marriages are capable of reproducing the human race. In other words, the kids will be lied to about what nature ordains.

The politicization of language is nothing new, but this latest entry is particularly disturbing. Marriage means one thing, and attempts to make it a smorgasbord are pernicious.

Want a gift of easy reading for a young guy this Christmas season? All Things Guy: A Guide to Becoming a Man that Matters by Teresa Tomeo, et al. might be just right. This short inspirational volume, the work of four committed Catholic women, asks such questions as, “Do you want to grow up to be a happy successful man?”, and, “Do you want to make something of yourself on earth and then, when your life is over, go to Heaven?”

The book is appropriate for Catholic boys aged 9 through 14. These are formative years, and in our society today, young guys need all the help they can get to keep on the straight and narrow. The temptations are many, and the right answers are harder to find.

All Things Guy contains chapters on such issues as dignity, virtue, vocations, family and friends, body, etc. Importantly, it does not talk down to readers, but neither does it equivocate on critical issues. It also has a chapter on “Strong Catholic Men,” that features a short look at Tom Monaghan, Bill Donohue and Father Frank Pavone.

Donohue says of this work, “Never preachy, the book should have wide appeal to Catholic young men trying to sort out contemporary issues in a confused culture.”

To order a copy go to www.BezalelBooks.com or e-mail the publishing house atBezalelBooks@gmail.com. To call, phone (248) 917-3865.

In the November issue of Catalyst, we noted President Barack Obama’s selection of Kevin Jennings to be the Director of the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools. We noted that Jennings is a former drug user, irresponsible teen counselor and a Christian basher.

What we did not know at the time is that he is also a proud member of ACT UP, the homosexual urban terrorist group that broke into St. Patrick’s Cathedral in 1989 and disrupted Mass; the Eucharist was desecrated and obscene depictions of Cardinal O’Connor were posted.

Now an organization called  MassResistance, and the website WorldNetDaily, have exposed Jennings as a member of ACT UP. And he is no mere member: Jennings is listed as a donor to a sick display, “ACT UP New York: Activism, Art, and the AIDS Crisis, 1987-1993,” currently featured at the Harvard Art Museum. Harvard, of course, would never feature a display of Klan paraphernalia and say it was being done for the purpose of “dialogue.”

The real story here is not the corruption of Harvard—that’s old news—the real story is the president’s choice of a morally challenged anti-Catholic homosexual to join his team. That Jennings belongs to, and sponsors, an urban terrorist organization, should alone disqualify him from public service at a municipal level. And remember, Obama did not choose him to monitor the environment—he was chosen to instruct youth on moral matters.

Catholics deserve to know why Obama likes Jennings.