I have been told by those who know him that Lane County District Attorney Doug Harcleroad is actually a nice person. Maybe he is. Maybe he’s not even anti-Catholic. But he sure isn’t too bright.

How any District Attorney could think that he could get away with bugging a priest in the confessional is beyond me. The guy he was interested in taping, Conan Wayne Hale, hadn’t even been charged with the triple homicide he was suspected of committing when the bug was placed. Evidently, D.A. Harcleroad thought that he would be a crowd pleaser by nailing Hale and wouldn’t have to worry about the negative publicity that Catholics might generate. It was a gamble he lived to regret.

How did the Catholic League jump on this story so quickly? Readers will remember that we led a fight against Eugene, Oregon Mayor Ruth Bascom last fall when she refused to condemn the awarding of city money to a group of anti-Catholic bigots called “The Rickies.” Eighteen men and women had dressed as nuns and priests and did a mock dance on the steps of a Roman Catholic Church during the Eugene Celebration Parade. And for this they were awarded second prize and a few hundred dollars. We took out an ad in the local paper protesting this action, so when the bugging took place, the reporters knew exactly whom to turn to for a response.

This was a story that generated an enormous amount of publicity, both at home and abroad. We got calls from Italy, England and Canada, wanting to know our reaction. We got calls from 60 Minutes and Dateline, as well as from National Public Radio,Time and the New York Times. The Washington Post and the Philadelphia Inquirerwrote editorials that were unabashedly on our side. Radio talk show hosts were, with one exception (a few wise guys from Los Angeles whom I enjoyed parrying with), uniformly supportive of our efforts.

Reporters aren’t dumb—they know what’s at stake once the state is able to break the seal of the confessional: journalists and their sources, psychiatrists and their patients, lawyers and clients, the clergy and the faithful—all would be vulnerable to governmental intrusion. That’s why the momentum kept building our way and that’s why we won.

We also won because of people like Patrick Foye. Pat is our General Counsel, a crackerjack lawyer who works at the prestigious New York law firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher and Flom. It was Pat who obtained for me important Supreme Court decisions that acknowledged the confidential status of the priest-penitent relationship. Indeed, he is the only person in the fields of law and journalism who was able to locate this valuable information. District Attorney Harcleroad tried to argue that the taping was okay because there was a sign in the jail where the confession was heard that said that no conversations were confidential. But Father Mockaitis wasn’t called in to chat with Mr. Hale, rather he was asked to administer the Sacrament of Reconciliation. And that makes all the difference in the world.

What is perhaps most galling about D.A. Harcleroad is the way he tried to save face. Anyone who says that what he did was “legal and ethical but simply not right,” obviously doesn’t know what the term ethical means. He should have plainly said that he was wrong, and just left it at that.

The Vatican is right in asking that the tape be destroyed. At this juncture, it is the counsel for Mr. Hale who seeks to safeguard the tape: she knows that the D.A. may lose the case if the tape isn’t destroyed.If I am grateful to Harcleroad about anything, it is that he unwittingly provided Catholics with a great teaching moment. There is great fascination about confession among those who are not Catholic and this case afforded many opportunities to separate fact from myth. In almost every instance, the media were sincerely interested in giving us a fair break in explaining the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

I am also grateful to Robert George of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission for his interest in pursuing this case. Congressman Charles Canady is also to be congratulated for his help in looking into this matter. And to Congressman Peter King, the Catholic League is especially indebted: he wasted no time in drafting legislation that will stop this abuse once and for all.

So there are good people out there. We all know lawyers, reporters and politicians whom we don’t like, but judging from what we experienced in the Oregon case, it is also true that there are lawyers like Pat Foye, reporters like Bill Bishop of the Eugene Register Guard (he broke the story) and politicians like Pete King who deserve nothing but our thanks and emulation.

There has always been humor and bad taste. Unfortunately, we not only have more bad taste than humor these days, we have a blurring of the lines between the two. To be exact, we have become so accustomed to bad taste that much of it frequently passes as humor.

Lots of people don’t like Bill and Hillary. But what Don Imus did was bad taste—insulting the President and First Lady at a function they attended. The reaction of Don Imus and his supporters was predictable: this is how radio talk show hosts earn their living, ergo, no one has a right to complain. Now if that’s true, then doesn’t that tell us something about the status of our culture?

The increase in bad taste is a function of our willingness to accept it. Quite simply, we get more of it because we are prepared to tolerate more of it. It’s also the case that many people no longer know what’s in good taste, the result being that bad taste is allowed to flourish. Consider, for example, Mad magazine.

When I was a kid, I loved reading Mad. To be sure, it was always a bit irreverent, but even in those days few complained that it was vulgar or insulting. No more. What was once a smart-alecky comic book has now become a trashy rag. Not content to poke fun at the conventional, it has become an organ that assaults the conventional. This signals a change in our culture, and it is not a change for the better.

The May edition of Mad has a spread titled, “The Devil’s Advocate: The Monthly Newsletter For Satan Worshippers.” Introducing this section we read the following inscriptions: “Yak Blood vs. Chicken Urine”; “Our Travel Experts Pick the 50 Best Churches, Temples and Mosques in Europe to Deface!”; “Vomiting on the Cross on Cue: Our Experts Show You How!”; “Surefire Ways to Foil an Exorcist!”

Then there is the spot called, “The Inquiring Photographer.” Four people, complete with their photo, are asked to respond to the question, “What was your most embarrassing moment as a devil worshipper?” Dolores Drippinger from Phoenix, Arizona expressed herself this way: “I walked past St. Patrick’s Cathedral the other day without hocking up a wad of green phlegm and spitting on its doorstep.”

We will survive Mad magazine, but we may not survive the culture that spawned it. When humor becomes debased, and vitriol acquires respectability, we are giving a green light to incivility. The social consequences of this are many and none is more evident than a coarsening of our culture. Here’s another example of what I mean.

When I read in the New York Times about a play that was surely anti-Catholic, I knew I had to see it (it comes with the territory of being president of the Catholic League). How did I know it was in bad taste? Because when the Times calls a play about Catholics “camp” humor, I know what that means.

I was ready for the Catholic bashing element of the play, but not for the crowd reaction. Oh sure, I didn’t expect that those who like this stuff would be aghast at what they saw, but I didn’t expect them to laugh at every single line and movement that—no matter how inane—took a cheap shot at Catholic beliefs and practices. The play was so dumb I left at intermission. I guess those who stayed behind just hadn’t gotten enough.

Reporters often ask how I know when a play, or a movie, is simply joking about Catholicism, or is attacking it. I don’t have a gadget that I pull out of my pocket, but I do have a sense of humor and a discriminating taste. Ideally, humor should be regarded as humor by both the humorist and the target audience. What matters is not how those who attend an event feel about it, rather it is how the target audience would have felt had they had seen it. And that is why The Tragic and Horrible Life of the Singing Nun qualifies as bad taste, even though those who saw it got a kick out of it.

When bad taste is seen as humor, it suggests something sinister is happening to the culture. Those who acquiesce are doing a disservice to themselves and to the next generation, and that is why it is necessary to challenge bad taste and root it out. That’s not only a good idea, it’s necessary for the preservation of good taste. And good taste allows for real humor, not its obverse.

I don’t like lunch. I have no problem with lunch on weekends, but on weekdays, that is a different matter altogether. Here’s why.

The Catholic League, thank God, continues to grow by leaps and bounds. As a result, I am frequently asked to have lunch with people to discuss the secrets of our success. Sometimes the request is simply to “touch base,” other times prominent individuals will seek my advice, and occasionally I am asked to join with them in a joint effort. While I have no aversion to any of these overtures, I have a problem with entertaining them over lunch. To be sure, there are exceptions, but in general my answer is no.

Most “working lunches” are a waste of time. Little is accomplished at lunches, and when it’s over there are messages that need to be answered and media that need to be contacted. It’s not just the two hours that were spent at lunch that need to be made up, the time away from the office breaks the rhythm of the day, making it all the more difficult to get back into the swing of things.

We pride ourselves at the Catholic League with doing an awful lot with a short staff. We put in long hours doing the kind of work our members are paying us to do. If I had lunch with everyone who extends an invitation, I would weigh 500 lbs. and accomplish a fraction of what I’m able to do right now. That’s why a quick hot dog on the streets of New York works well for me.

Another problem I have with lunch is that most of the time is spent talking about someone’s wish list. But doing, not talking, is what counts. There are plenty of other opportunities to talk about special projects without wasting time in the middle of the day. Discussing new ventures can be done over the phone, or over a beer after work, but they don’t need to be done at the expense of time away from the office.

Many good intentioned people are deep into process. But process short of a defined goal and timetable is a joke. The old adage, “there’s no time like the present,” rings true, and it would be refreshing if more people on our side tried to actualize this maxim. Why they don’t is no mystery.

Once a project has been outlined, it needs execution. Immediate execution. But too often what happens is that a lack of courage kills a good idea. Then the process starts all over again with yet another agenda item that will go by the wayside.

What exactly are people afraid of? The adversaries of the Catholic Church–and there are many of them–don’t lack for courage, so why should we? There are more good people, non-Catholics as well as Catholics, who are ready to support us in our efforts, making inexplicable the lack of fortitude on our side. Hang-wringing over lunch makes for self-righteousness, not action, and that is why occasions that provide for such opportunities should be avoided.

Another problem with lunches is that too often people are more interested in feeding their egos than their stomach. Name-dropping has never impressed me–quite the contrary, it’s a bore–so when that start’s happening, I tune out. The world is full of people who know people, but in the end rubbing shoulders gives me the rub: once you’ve met them, then what? Is it really important to have one more business card in your pocket?

Lunches, it is said, are good for “networking.” They are indeed. But once that’s been done, then what? And even if the contact that has been made is fruitful for both parties, and not just for one, couldn’t such “networking” have taken place in some other venue? What’s wrong with a half hour appointment at the office? At least those pretend to be doing work while watching a game in a “sky box” are typically doing it on their own time, which is more than can be said of those who bolt from the office to “network” with some new Joe or Josephine.

Over the past few months I have spoken in Florida, Texas, Wyoming, Virginia, California and Pennsylvania, and everywhere I go I find an appetite for leadership, a willingness to fight the good fight. With so many people standing behind the Catholic League, we can’t let them down. And it is not easy to see how we can please our members by visiting the latest restaurant at noon.

“Doing lunch” is not a prescription for achievement, rather it is an excuse for doing nothing. So that’s why I’m anti-lunch. Hope you are, too.

The editor of a Pennsylvania newspaper recently called to protest my letter objecting to an anti-Catholic cartoon. Nothing noteworthy about that. But what is worth mentioning was his tone. He could not for the life of him understand why there was a need for an organization like the Catholic League. He spoke for many when he said that, aside from a few extreme instances, there was very little anti-Catholicism in the country. What the league saw as examples of bigotry, he contended, were nothing more than criticisms against the Church.

Now try contrasting this bigotry suffered by other segments of our society. The terms racist, sexist and homophobic are bandied about so recklessly that those who ask for proof are often seen as part of the problem. It’s as though declarations of bigotry are evidence enough. Just consider how many people think that merely asking Hillary Clinton to testify before a grand jury is proof positive that there is sexism in the land.

But when it comes to the Catholic Church, that’s a different story. When the Catholic League charges that the Church has been defamed, we are expected to provide mountains of evidence and tons of testimony, all of which are designed to persuade the skeptics to our cause. Our complaint, to be clear about this, is not that we should be forced to verify our charges, it is simply that there is a double standard at work. We have to pass a rigorous test while others are given a free pass.

A syndicated columnist from the South takes it a step further. “If Ralph Nader criticizes industry,” he asks, “is he bashing it? If an artist caricatures an ineffective and misdirected school board, is he bashing education? If today’s media react to the situation in the churches [rackets and scandals] with news features, editorial comment, sharp-edged cartoons, what we’re witnessing is honest reporting and commentary, not bashing.”

The columnist is right, though his remarks are disingenuous. Surely there is a difference between reporting on a scandal and fanning the flames of discontent. The latter is accomplished, in part, when gross generalizations are made about an entire class of people or organization. It is one thing to publish news accounts of a clergyman gone astray, quite another to take a stab at the Church while doing so. If superiors covered up a misdeed, they should be exposed, but attempts to condemn a 2000 year old institution–which has very clear-cut rules against the immoral behavior–should be resisted by all responsible editors.

Another popular comment, often made by the same persons, is that the Catholic Church should be able to defend itself. It is a doubly dumb statement: a) it presupposes that the Church is incapable of self-defense and b) it presumes that the laity are not part of the Church.

The Catholic Church, like all other organizations under attack, can use allies, and that is what the Catholic League is–an ally of the Church. As lay men and women we have every right to protect our Church, and indeed we carry a moral obligation to do so. We are needed not so much because the clergy can’t do the job, but because as lay people we are afforded greater latitude in choosing the right means of redress. Besides, does anyone complain that there should be no Anti-Defamation League for Jews on the grounds that rabbis are sufficient to the task?

There is another dimension at work here as well. Some people are so angry with the Catholic Church (many are ex-Catholics) that they simply deny the existence of Catholic bashing. These same persons would be horrified at the suggestion that their denial of anti-Catholicism is rooted in their own bigotry, but the facts speaks otherwise. When charges of racism, sexism and homophobia are casually and routinely leveled at the Church, with nothing to back up the claims other than sheer emotion, something quite telling is being revealed.

Much of what the Catholic League is complaining about could be resolved rather quickly, if only the skeptics would listen. Our complaint boils down to this: we want a level playing field. And until we get one, we will continue to do our job.

When Nelli Gray asked me to be a speaker at the 1996 March for Life convention, I was delighted to accept. Nelli has been out in front of the abortion issue for years and has done as much as anyone in the country to keep this issue before the public. Reflecting on what I would say, I kept coming back to the time when I first gave serious thought to the subject.

Prior to Roe v. Wade, I had not thought much about abortion. However, soon after abortion was legalized in 1973, I began teaching at St. Lucy’s School in Spanish Harlem. As a third grade teacher in El Barrio, I was asked to teach all subjects, including religion. It was while I was teaching religion that I came to read about abortion and ultimately to form a position on the issue.

As a Catholic, I knew full well what the Church’s teachings were on the subject, but as a young graduate student at the time, I wanted to read about all sides of the issue. In the course of doing so, I read about the physical qualities of very young fetuses, the meaning of “unsuccessful” abortions, the contrary positions of Jesse Jackson and a black M.D. from Mississippi, and the consequences of dehumanization. All left a lasting impression on me.

When I read about how soon after conception the organs of the body began to develop, and how the physical qualities that make us human were there from practically the beginning, it seemed plain that the fetus was a child that had not yet been born. To have claimed otherwise struck me as simply dishonest. This being so, it quickly became apparent that the only difference between a fetus and an infant was location, or, put differently, there was no moral difference between feticide and infanticide.

Reading about “unsuccessful” abortions sealed the issue for me even further. An “unsuccessful” abortion, my readings explained, occurred when the baby came out alive. In such cases, doctors and nurses would then try to save the life of the very same baby they said didn’t exist just moments before. How the doctors and nurses could live with themselves after all this, I could not understand. It was beyond me how anyone could pretend that abortion wasn’t homicide after reading about “unsuccessful” abortions. My students, who at that time were seventh and eighth graders, felt the same way.

In the mid-1970s, Jesse Jackson was still a pro-lifer. So much so that he contended that abortion was a form of genocide against blacks. I remember discussing this with my students, and while I had mixed feelings about Jackson’s argument, I felt Jackson’s position was far more plausible than the one that was being promoted by another black professional, a doctor from the Deep South.

In a magazine interview, the M.D. (whose name I do not recall) complained that life was difficult for him growing up as a black person in the Mississippi Delta. No doubt he was telling the truth. But then he added an incredible non sequitur: ergo, legalized abortions were necessary.

It struck me as bizarre that a man who was obviously doing quite well in life–despite his “difficult” upbringing–would now recommend to other blacks, as well as everyone else, the merits of abortion. My students, almost all of whom were black or Puerto Rican, and came from equally troubled circumstances, saw little to admire in the idea that they would have been better off had their mothers aborted them (quite obviously, life was not so bad for either them or the good doctor that suicide was preferable to living). To this day, when I hear that unwanted children should never be born, I see the faces of my St. Lucy’s students, and wonder how anyone could dare suggest that they would have been better off dead.

Finally, I remember reading how Albert Speer, one of Hitler’s henchmen, could justify killing innocent people. After spending some 20 years in Spandau prison, Speer admitted that though he helped kill massive numbers of Jews, he never had anything against them as a people. When I first read this, it didn’t make any sense to me. Was he lying after all these years? Then he explained his behavior by saying, “I simply depersonalized them.”

For Speer, Jews were less than human and were therefore not worthy of human rights. He could not kill a person, but he could kill a Jew. It began to make sense to me.

When I stepped on an ant, I reasoned, I felt nothing. But would I not feel guilt and remorse if I were to step on a human being, however inadvertently? Surely there was a difference between humans and everything else, and that is why humans must be thought of as human, lest we begin to treat them as non-humans. [For more on this, see the splendid book by William Brennan, Dehumanizing the Vulnerables: When Word Games Take Lives, just published by Loyola University Press.]

Many years have passed since I presented these thoughts to my students at St. Lucy’s, but nothing has happened to make me change my mind. Yes, abortion is about biology, morality, ethics, philosophy, religion, medicine and law. But it is also about honesty and logic. Unfortunately, these properties are in short supply, and nowhere is this more evident than among those walking around with their advanced degrees.

I defy anyone to name a single organization that has more rabid members than the Catholic League. Indeed, one of the reasons why we don’t rent our membership list to other organizations is because of the special nature of our members. Our members are generous, loyal and extremely active. When we ask them to write to offending parties and the like, they respond with a vigor that is unparalleled. It cannot be exaggerated that the Catholic League is all of us, not simply the paid staff.

The Catholic League is growing by leaps and bounds. There are many reasons for our success, some of which I’d like to discuss.

As I’ve said before, the style of the Catholic League is to be “responsibly aggressive.” I know that our members love this style because we’ve never gotten as much positive mail as when I first wrote this in the September edition of Catalyst. Therefore, we will keep it up and hope not to let you down.

Second, we put our money where it counts: we do not spend money on frill events, rather we target specific issues and problem areas. For example, the ads that we recently ran in the newspapers in Eugene, Oregon and Las Vegas, Nevada were all unbudgeted expenditures. We take the money you give us and put it into meaningful projects, because otherwise, what in the world are we here for? Just to say we’re a bunch of good guys who feel wounded by bigots?

Third, we aim to win. Obviously, we don’t win them all, but our record of victories is impressive. If there is one thing that I am particularly impatient about, it is the idea that good intentions are good enough. Sorry, good intentions that never materialize into palpable results are nothing more than drawing board ideas. We specialize in public embarrassment of public figures who have earned our wrath and that is why we are able to win so many battles: no person or organization wants to be publicly embarrassed, and that is why we specialize in doing exactly that, when, of course, a case merits such a reaction.

Fourth, the Catholic League prizes its autonomy. This is critically important if the League is to succeed. We are neither ideologically driven nor in the pocket of fat cats. Our only mission is to defend individual Catholics and the institutional Church from defamation and discrimination. We defend, and criticize, Republicans as well as Democrats. Independent of wealthy contributors, we are proud to get our money from the rank and file.

Fifth, we stay focused. We do not try to be all things to all Catholics. Though we are pro-life, we are not a pro-life organization. Though we are pro-vouchers, we are not a pro-voucher organization. Though we are pro-family, we are not a pro-family organization. And so on. We are a civil rights organization. Our mission is the defense of individual Catholics and the institutional Church. Catholic rights and anti-defamation issues occupy the lion’s share of our work.

Sixth, we have a great staff. You’ve all heard the cliche about being “mean and lean.” Well, folks, that’s not an empty platitude for us-that is us. We’re not big in staff but we are staffed by big-hearted persons, men and women who know how to get the job done. So do our chapter leaders. They are becoming the kind of force that I dreamed they would become.

Lastly, we have you. You are the eyes and ears of the Catholic League. How do you think we got involved in the Eugene, Oregon case? If it hadn’t been for League member Daniel A. Sullivan of Noti, Oregon, we probably wouldn’t have known. The good news is that there are thousands of Dan Sullivans who belong to the Catholic League.

For all these reasons, and more, we are moving ahead doing the job of defending Catholic civil rights. The relatively few cheap shots that were taken at the Pope by the media in October is testimony to a change in the culture. We don’t want to become a politically correct force, but we do want to become a respected force, and that, I think, is exactly what we have become.

Merry Christmas, everyone, you’ve made this a very special one for all of us at the Catholic League.

What a sorry bunch of creeps. That’s the only way I can describe the way I feel about those who mounted their little protest against the Pope. Pope John Paul II is arguably the greatest man of the 20th century and he is surely the most beloved person on earth today. Non-Catholics, as well as Catholics, have embraced him in a manner that is absolutely awesome. And that is why those who protested against him are so pitiful: it is they – not the Pope – who are strangely out of step with the masses.

Who are the protesters and what do they want? To begin with, I am not talking about those persons who, for whatever reason, have sharp disagreements with the Catholic Church. I am talking exclusively about the radical fringe, some of whom are pictured in this issue. The first thing to notice about them is that they are very bitter people. The depth of their hate is enormous and it is not just their hatred of the Pope that motivates them. They are unhappy with themselves, with America, with Western Civilization, with nature and with God. Is it any wonder they find it difficult to smile?

Notice who these people are. Their interests are abortion, homosexuality and atheism. Radically self-absorbed, what they want is a world where they can do whatever they want to their bodies, with no cost to themselves, and where they are accountable to no one, not even to God. That is why they are a pathetic lot.

Listen to what they say. Just prior to the papal visit, Frances Kissling of Catholics for a Free Choice called the Pope “a mean man.” I made sure to tell that to every journalist, TV commentator and radio talk show host I could find. I want them to know exactly what kind of person they are dealing with when they talk to Kissling. Even the Pope’s biggest detractors find him irresistible as a person, and that is why Kissling’s remark is so valuable: it shows that she is not just another critic, she is in a class all by herself. She is also a coward.

A few weeks before the papal visit, I was asked by PBS in New York if l would debate Frances Kissling on TV. Of course, I said yes. Kissling had already agreed to the debate, though she did not know whom it was she would be debating. The week before the papal visit, I got a call back from PBS. Kissling, upon learning whom she would be debating, canceled. I was told by the producer at PBS that when my name was mentioned, she was “literally terrified.”

So much for Kissling. She spends her life sucker-punching the Catholic Church but doesn’t have the guts to confront her adversaries. When CNN called, I recommended a debate between Kissling and me. The producer was excited about the idea and said she would try to arrange it. She never called back.

Radical feminist Gloria Steinem showed up at the protest march in New York and delivered this gem of a quote: “We will live to see the day that St. Patrick’s Cathedral is a child-care center and the Pope is no longer a disgrace to the skirt that he has on.” Dream on, Gloria, your time has already passed and you still don’t know it. Thirty years after her feminist movement began, women are more exploited in music, the movies, television and the theater than ever before, and now, having given up on her original goals, poor Gloria wants to bring her social engineering skills to bear on St. Pat’s.

Someone from the press asked if the Catholic League would be organizing a counter demonstration against the protesters. No, I said, not on your life: I would never do anything to take the spotlight off of them. I want the whole world to know what a sorry bunch of creeps they really are.

We get lots of calls left on our answering machine, most of which are run-of-the-mill-type messages. Some, however, are downright obscene. But whatever can be said of foul-mouthed bigots, the charge of cowardice or hypocrisy usually doesn’t apply. The same is not true of the Catholic bashers who work at the ABA, Benetton and Calvin Klein. They not only insult Catholics, they seek to do so with impunity.

A few years back, the ABA strayed from its non-partisan tradition by formally committing the organization to the politics of abortion. Now the ABA is playing games again, and just like its first foray into partisan politics, the subject is abortion and Catholicism. Ever consistent, the ABA’s affection for abortion rights is matched by its hostility to Catholicism.

It is one thing for the ABA to print an obtuse piece on the merger of Catholic and secular hospitals, quite another to inflame Catholics with a cover illustration of a pregnant woman “crucified” on an operating table. Evidently, the editors of Human Rights have a rather limited understanding of the rights of Catholics and an even poorer grasp of the responsibilities of a publisher. To make matters worse, however, the officials at the ABA are cowards as well.

When we asked the ABA for permission to reprint the cover illustration, we were denied. We were told instead to consult with the artist, a New York woman by the name ofVictoria Kann. If she agreed, then we were free to reprint the cover. But, of course, she refused, making plain her objections to our objections to her offensive work.

Benetton is another master of hypocrisy. It actually goes out of its way to offend certain segments of society and then plays dumb when challenged. More disturbing is the effrontery it displayed by criticizing the Calvin Klein jean ads for going “over the line.” Benetton spokesman Peter Fressola said that the Klein ads were “very erotic and manipulative,” adding that “I think they very much knew what they were doing.” Of course they did, and so did Benetton when it released its Christ on the Cross, “Do You Play Alone,” Asolo boot ad.

In an official statement on its ads for the 1995-1996 season, Benetton describes its “Christ/Asolo Boots” ad as depicting “A regular man whose performance in life made him larger than any man in history. When you play life and play alone, only a superior performance counts.” Now are we to believe that Benetton didn’t know what it was doing when it branded Jesus Christ a “regular man”? The addlebrained employees at Benetton certainly knew that this ad was “over the line,” but like their competitors at Calvin Klein, and like their counterparts at the ABA, they prefer to shun all responsibility for their conduct.

Lots of reporters were surprised that the Calvin Klein ads were singled out for criticism. After all, they reasoned, why were these ads any different from all the others that offend these days? One reason was surely the age of the models. Nearly everyone objected to the sexploitation of kids, the lone exception being the ACLU.

Norm Siegel of the New York affiliate complained that groups like the Catholic League were chilling “cutting-edge sexual expression.” I hope Norm’s right, but I find it curious why an organization that purportedly objects only to attempts by the government to quell speech,and is allegedly committed to defending the free speech of private citizens (that would appear to include us), would sound the alarm of censorship. But then again internal consistency is not an attribute the ACLU ever possessed.

Another reason why the Calvin Klein ads created an uproar was the sheer ubiquity of the ads: they were plastered all over New York City buses and were hung from huge billboards in heavily trafficked areas of the city. So much for the tired argument about “averting your eyes.” Not anymore we can’t.

To Camille Paglia, the Calvin Klein ads were the product of radical homosexuals. Paglia is a maverick lesbian writer who likes pornography. “Those images of vulnerable boys with their legs spread,” she explained, “that’s right out of the NAMBLA [North American Man-Boy Love Association] magazines that I get.” Commenting on who is behind the ads, Paglia offers, “It’s gay guys in the fashion industry pushing the pedophilia agenda.” Having seen the ads, I have no reason to doubt her insight.

The people who work at the ABA, Benetton and Calvin Klein are all very well educated. But it only goes to show that hate and greed can kill even the best of minds.

Last month I addressed the question of the Catholic League’s politics, so this month I thought I’d discuss the League’s style.

If there is one criticism of the Catholic League that is persistently made it is that the League is entirely too hard-hitting in its style. Interestingly, this criticism comes predominantly from Catholics, though others have been known to make the same charge; some, in both camps, are friendly to the League, while others are not. At bottom, these critics say that the Catholic League’s combative approach ill-suits the Catholic image: instead of fighting with our adversaries, these critics implore us to follow a more spiritual approach. Love and compassion, not heated rhetoric and confrontational politics, is the appropriate Catholic answer to adversity, they say.

To the accusation that the Catholic League has a rough edge to it, we plead guilty as charged. There is a reason for this: we are not a charitable organization, a fraternity or sorority, a social service outfit, a retreat house, a shelter or a wellness center. We are a civil rights organization. And like our analogues-ACLU, NAACP, NOW, ADL-we pursue justice in the public arena. As such, we must compete head-to-head with those who are working against us. That requires a certain toughness, a will to directly confront those who are abusive of individual Catholics and the institutional Church.

Responsibly aggressive. That’s the way I like to describe the Catholic League. Love, compassion, and all those other fine humanistic virtues are critical to personal and social well-being. Similarly, prayer groups and retreats are honorable enterprises, worthy of wide acceptance. But in the battle for religious and civil rights, the exclusive reliance on such attributes is not enough. Not, at least, if we are to win. And I don’t like losing. None of this is to say that anything goes. Acting responsibly is, in fact, of special importance to any organization concerned with constitutional rights. But it does not follow that every Catholic organization ought to be judged from the window of a sacristy. I’m sorry, folks, one size does not fit all: it is just as wrong to judge pastoral work by the yardstick of a civil rights enterprise as it would be to judge a civil rights organization by the standards used to measure pastoral work.

And whoever said that being a good Catholic meant taking a strictly pietistic approach? The Catholics in my lifetime for whom I have the deepest respect-Bishop Fulton J. Sheen, Mother Teresa, Cardinal John O’Connor and Pope John Paul II-are not exactly shrinking violets. They are men and women who carry out their public duties with a gusto that excites. To be sure, they do so in a manner that is much less incendiary than the Catholic League, but no one at the League ever pretended that we are a match for any of them.

As for the unfriendly critics of the Catholic League, they seek not to instruct us on style, rather they seek to shut us up. When they counsel more dialogue and more tolerance, what they’re saying is knock it off, stop confronting the enemies of Catholicism and get on with the task of building bridges.

Here’s what they like to say: Don’t you know that there are many out there who have been hurt by the Church? How do you expect to reach them if all you do is challenge them? Notice how the onus is always on us. Not sometimes-always. These critics are not battle fatigued, rather they have actively joined the battle against us. Did it ever occur to those who worship at the altar of dialogue that some of us are just plain fed up with having our religion trashed? We didn’t start this culture war against the Catholic Church, we simply want to stop it.

I know what the sages say, “It’s better to use honey than vinegar.” Maybe so, but it still helps to have the vinegar handy. Personally, I like salsa the best, and I like it hot.

Unfriendly news reporters often tag the Catholic League as “the archconservative Catholic League,” or something to that effect. Friendly news reporters don’t make that charge, but they are curious as to how I respond to such charges. Now that I’ve been president of the Catholic League for two years, the time is right to clear the air on this matter.

The Catholic League defends the right of the Catholic Church to say whatever it wants, free of bigotry and insult. The only politics we have is the politics of the Catholic Church. Personally, I would find it difficult to classify exactly what that politics is. After all, the Catholic Church’s positions on marriage and the family are quite con- servative, but its positions on the poor and dispossessed are quite lib- eral. How to score such an admixture is not easy. Perhaps that is why it’s more accurate to say that the Catholic Church has no politics. If that is true then neither does the Catholic League.

Still, the perception persists that the Catholic League is a conservative organization. What gives rise to this perception is perhaps the most fascinating aspect of the whole debate.

Anti-Catholic bigots cover the political spectrum from left to right. Some are Democrats, some are Republicans, some belong to extremist parties and some belong to no party at all. We get hate mail from all of them. But it is nonetheless true that we spend more time fending off bigotry from the left than from the right, and it is this reality that gives rise to the perception that we are a conservative organization.

If we spend more time fighting left-wing anti-Catholic bigots, it is not because the left is more big- oted than the right, rather it is because the sources of bigotry on the left are more establishmentarian than they are on the right. For example, the typical right-wing anti-Catholic bigot is an uneducated lout, whereas the typical left-wing anti-Catholic bigot is an educated elitist. It’s the difference between rednecks and Ivy Leaguers, or between Archie Bunker and Norman Lear. Some live on Main Street and others own it.

Uneducated bigots usually aren’t organized and therefore their impact is rather confined. Educated bigots use their influence in activist organizations, governmental agencies, colleges, universities, media offices, publishing quarters, etc. to disseminate their hatred of Catholicism to a very wide audience. The Catholic League does not generally respond to bigotry that comes from the gallery; it directs its attention to those in the first row, and those who sit there usually sit left of center.

We have no reliable evidence as to the politics of our members, but judging from the letters we receive, it appears that conservatives outnumber liberals. This is not surprising. Generally speaking, the more orthodox the Catholic the more conservative are his views. Our latest survey demonstrates this, as does a wealth of other empirical data. It makes sense that those who want the Church to make the most dramatic changes are also the least sensitive to charges of anti-Catholic bigotry: many on the left can’t distinguish between bigotry and criticism, even in cases that are pretty clearly marked.

Here’s an anecdote that is appropo. About a year or so ago, our direct mail consultant contacted a well-known liberal Catholic publication to see if we could buy its mailing list. The response he got was quite telling: the employee said that no, the list would not be made available because readers of the publication would not be interested in anti-defamation issues. Imagine the readers of a liberal (or conservative) Jewish publication not being interested in anti-Semitism. I can’t.

For the record, it should be known that the first act I engaged in as president of the Catholic League was to publicly criticize anti-gay Catholics from obstructing a Mass in a New York church. That earned me threatening letters and phone calls from crazies on the right. Over the past two years, we have defended liberal members of the clergy and we have aligned ourselves with gay groups in criticizing Louis Farrakhan. We have attacked Republican and Democratic office holders and we have defended the Catholic Church on issues that have been politically liberal as well as politically conservative. We will continue to do so.

So what about me? I started as a Democrat and then became a Republican. Now I’ve switched again: I’m a registered Independent. Just like the Catholic League.