Old-time rock star David Bowie made a splash with his new video that accompanies his song, “The Next Day.”

The video is strewn with characteristic excess: one priest bashes a homeless man, while others are busy hitting on women; self-flagellation is depicted; a dancing gal with bleeding hands makes a stigmata statement; and a customer is served eyeballs on a plate.

The lyrics refer to the “priest stiff in hate” and “women dressed as men for the pleasure of that priest.” The song concludes with, “They can work with Satan while they dress with the saints.” In short, the video reflects the artist—it is a mess.

Bill Donohue commented on Bowie’s latest effort: “The switch-hitting, bisexual, senior citizen from London has resurfaced, this time playing a Jesus-like character who hangs out in a nightclub dump frequented by priests, cardinals and half-naked women.”

Bowie is confused about religion. He once made a public confession: “I was young, fancy free, and Tibetan Buddhism appealed to me at that time. I thought, ‘There’s salvation.’ It didn’t really work. Then I went through Nietzsche, Satanism, Christianity…pottery, and ended up singing. It’s been a long road.”

Donohue noted that as confused as Bowie is, “it’s a sure bet he can’t stop thinking about the Cadillac of all religions, namely Roman Catholicism. There is hope for him yet.” Donohue’s remarks were picked up by media outlets ranging from Rolling Stone to the Wall Street Journal.

When we learned that California lawmakers were considering whether to strip the Boy Scouts of America of their tax-exempt status in the state, Bill Donohue decided that he wanted to play this tax game as well.

Here is an excerpt from his letter to Sacramento legislators:

I understand that California lawmakers are weighing a decision to rescind the tax-exempt status of the Boy Scouts of America; at issue is whether it is a discriminatory organization. While you are considering this issue, I would like you to also determine whether a San Francisco-based group, the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, should lose its tax-exempt status.

The Sisters are an anti-Catholic group of homosexuals who dress as nuns and mock every conceivable Catholic belief and practice. When Pope John Paul II visited San Francisco in 1987, the Sisters held an “exorcism” and a Condom Savior Mass; at the latter event, they featured “the Latex Host” and referred to “the Condom Savior.” Perversely, it was in 1987 that the Sisters were granted a tax-exempt status.

We have collected reams of information on the Sisters, and all of it demonstrates how this group not only mocks Catholicism, it also shows how it mocks the very reason why a tax-exempt status is awarded in the first place (serving the public interest).

So in your deliberations on the Boy Scouts, please consider the tax-exempt status of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence.

We’ll keep you informed.

It didn’t take long before the world embraced Pope Francis. The election of Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio to be the new leader of 1.2 billion Catholics was greeted with applause around the globe, but nowhere was it more apparent than in Latin America.

Ten days before the election, Bill Donohue was quoted in the Los Angeles Times expressing what he would like to see in the new pope. “If the new pope embodies the attributes of humility and courage, he will likely succeed,” Donohue said. Pope Francis certainly fits the bill. Indeed, his humbleness instantly proved to be irresistible, and not just within Catholic circles.

Rev. Mark S. Hanson, presiding bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, said he is “encouraged that Pope Francis has worked with Lutherans in Argentina,” and praised him for his “humility and solidarity with those who live on the margins of society.” Gary Bauer, a key evangelical leader, congratulated Pope Francis saying, evangelicals “have a stake in who is elected pope, because without a strong pope, evangelicals will lose their best allies in the most important cultural and political battles of our age.”

Rev. Samuel Rodriguez of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference said the cardinals who voted for Bergoglio proved their “courageous, bold and catalytic determination.” Nihad Awad, director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, pledged “the Muslim community’s support and cooperation.”

The reaction from most Jewish leaders was ecstatic. Abraham Foxman of the ADL praised the leadership of Pope Francis, especially for his outreach to Jews in Argentina. Rabbi David Rosen of the American Jewish Committee said the pope was a “warm and sweet and honest man” who often expressed his “solidarity with the Jewish community.” The president of the World Jewish Congress, Ronald Lauder, said the pope was “no stranger to us,” noting his “open-mindedness.” Rabbi Joseph Potasnik of the New York Board of Rabbis lauded the pope for his “history of outstanding relationships with the Jewish people.”

Pope Francis has rightly received kudos for his dedication to the poor. Perhaps less well known is his rejection of liberation theology, a Marxist-infused ideology that claims solidarity with the needy, but in reality is more interested in fomenting class warfare. In other words, he sees through those who want to hijack Catholicism to serve a political agenda.

The Catholic League will run a tribute to Pope Francis on April 15; it will appear on the op-ed page of the New York Times.

Thomas Monaghan, a member of the advisory board of the Catholic League, prevailed in federal district court against the Obama administration’s Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate. On March 14, Judge Lawrence P. Zatkoff of the Eastern District of Michigan granted a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction against enforcement of the HHS mandate.

Monaghan and his property management company, Domino’s Farms Corporation, is being represented by the Thomas More Law Center (Monaghan sold Domino’s Pizza in 1998; Domino’s Farms is a separate entity).

The Obama administration’s lawyers contended that once a business owner chooses to enter into the marketplace, he no longer is entitled to exercise his religious rights. But Judge Zatkoff disagreed, saying, “It is in the best interest of the public that Monaghan not be compelled to act in conflict with his religious beliefs.”

The attorney for the Thomas More Law Center, Erin Mersino, nailed it just right: “The HHS Mandate forces our clients to provide abortion causing drugs to their employees when doing so is a direct violation of the teachings of the Catholic Church and our clients’ sincerely held religious beliefs. The Court’s decision today upholds everyone’s freedom of religion and rights protected by the Constitution.”

There will no doubt be an appeal to the Sixth Circuit Court, and eventually all of these matters are bound to wind up in the U.S. Supreme Court. It is encouraging, however, that Tom Monaghan and his able lawyers won this round.

The news of February 11 that Pope Benedict XVI was resigning hit everyone by surprise. Many were shocked, and with good reason: we live in a world of self-absorbed, ego-driven public figures, thus making the Holy Father’s decision seemingly incomprehensible.

Pope Benedict’s legacy is secure. His encyclicals showed not only his brilliance, they demonstrated his ability to speak convincingly from the heart. His reach was enormous, touching everyone from intellectuals to young people. Though his critics called him the “rottweiler,” most came to love him for who he was.

On the central issues of our day, no one rivaled Pope Benedict XVI. Religion, he emphasized, was as much a public issue as it was a private one. In 2008, he warned American bishops against “the subtle influence of secularism,” holding that “any tendency to treat religion as a private matter must be resisted.” Similarly, he made it clear that religious freedom was not only a God-given right, it was “the path to peace.”

The pope knew religion could be abused, even leading to violence. His much misunderstood 2006 Regensburg University lecture was really about the uncoupling of religion from reason (reason not united to faith also leads to violence).

No one did more to successfully address the problem of priestly sexual abuse than Joseph Ratzinger. Just weeks before he was chosen to be the new pope, he spoke bluntly about this issue: “How much filth there is in the Church, and even among those who, in the priesthood, ought to belong entirely to Him!” His actions made good on his words.

The pope’s many references to what he called “the dictatorship of relativism” was a reminder that one of the greatest threats to freedom today is the abandonment of the search for truth.

In the wake of this news there has been an explosion of unsolicited advice; it will be ongoing for some time. Paradoxically, most of it is coming from those who are not exactly connected to the Church: we are hearing from ex-Catholics, those with one foot out the door, and non-Catholics. Much of their advice has to do with sex, proving once again that it is not the Church that is obsessed with sex—it is the Church’s critics.

Everyone is entitled to offer advice. But those who are no longer practicing Catholics, or who never were, cannot expect a serious hearing. Indeed, the hubris these people manifest is absolutely astounding.

In the coming months, look for the binge of voyeurism, as well as meddling, to continue. Trust us, we will be there to provide a cogent riposte.

Revised Health and Human Services (HHS) rules were released on February 1.

In two separate statements, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), and its president, Cardinal Timothy Dolan, made plain their interest in pursuing the ongoing conversation with Obama administration officials on the HHS mandate. Their goal, as expressed by Cardinal Dolan, is to reach “an acceptable solution” to this issue.

The Catholic hierarchy wants to broaden the understanding of what constitutes a religious ministry. Cardinal Dolan also addressed funding for abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception, saying “there remains the possibility that ministries may yet be forced to fund and facilitate such morally illicit activities.” The third issue of concern is the right of those who own a business in the private-sector not to fund such activities.

The best of all possible worlds would be for the Obama administration to roll back its mandate, effectively granting the status quo ante. But that seems unlikely. This is not a settled issue, and the door is open for our side to secure the kinds of religious liberty protections we need. However, because serious discussions are under way, we don’t need our side blasting the administration at this juncture. Unfortunately, some groups have done just that.

From the beginning, the Catholic League has been critical of the HHS mandate while being supportive of the delicate negotiations. It is not always an easy walk, but it is absolutely essential

This is the year that the final showdown will take place between the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Catholic institutions. As 2012 came to a close, the judiciary was still sending mixed messages.

At the end of November, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered the Fourth Circuit of Appeals to rule on the religious-liberty issues of ObamaCare that are being contested by Liberty University. Previously, the circuit court ruled that a challenge was premature, but the high court vacated that decision.

In early December, a U.S. District Court ruled that the Archdiocese of New York could proceed with its lawsuit against the HHS mandate. District Judge Brian Cogan said the federal government’s pledge that it would not burden the Archdiocese once ObamaCare kicks in was not satisfactory. As he neatly put it, “There is no ‘Trust us, changes are coming’ clause in the Constitution.”

In mid-December, the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia heard arguments on the propriety of allowing a lawsuit by Wheaton and Belmont Abbey, two religious colleges, to go forward even though the HHS rules have not been finalized. A ruling will soon be made whether to proceed now or wait.

The confusion will come to an end no later than August; that is when the final HHS rules will be released. In the meantime, Catholic League advisory board member Tom Monaghan (founder of Domino’s Pizza) has also decided to challenge the legality of the HHS mandate.

Left-wing Catholics were exuberant with the election results, but their eudemonia proved fleeting: the very next week the bishops met in Baltimore where they reaffirmed their commitment to the civil rights of the unborn, the defense of marriage, and the cause of religious liberty. The Catholic League was delighted with the hierarchy’s statements.

Thus those Catholics who reject the Church’s teachings on abortion and marriage, and who support the anti-Catholic mandate being imposed by Health and Human Services (HHS), lost big time when the United States  Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) assembled for their biannual meeting. Moreover, the bishops shot down a vaguely worded document on the poor; it was not distributed to them until they arrived at the meeting.

Everyone knew the bishops would not drop their guard on issues like abortion and marriage, but given all the flack they’ve received over fighting the HHS mandate, the outcome was less certain. Timothy Cardinal Dolan, the president of the USCCB, minced no words in his continued support for religious liberty.

Critics of the bishops went bonkers. It is important for the practicing-Catholic community—the only subset that really counts—to understand that there are any number of front groups out there who deceitfully use the Catholic label to advance their agenda. Three such entities that  condemned the bishops are Catholics for Choice, Catholics United, and Faithful America.

Catholics for Choice is the oldest of the anti-Catholic front groups—it is a creature of the Ford Foundation and has no members—and it told the bishops that they need to “realize the error of their ways.” Two other groups lectured the bishops to “refocus their attention on caring for the poor and vulnerable” (by which they mean pushing for more welfare): Catholics United and Faithful America; the former was founded with seed money from atheist billionaire George Soros, and the latter is an online hybrid of another Soros-funded front group, Faith in Public Life.

Remember all those Catholic left-wingers who for years were singing the refrain about the need to achieve common ground? Some of us never believed them, and now at least one of them has admitted that this was a ploy all along. “It is said after every election that the victors should put politics aside and work for the good of the country,” wrote E.J. Dionne. Then he unloaded: “If President Obama believed this pious nonsense, he would put his second term in jeopardy.” Nice to know he does not want the president to “work for the good of the country.”

Many members have asked for advice on how to handle attempts to censor manger scenes from public property. Here’s some straight talk.

When a petition to erect a crèche on public property is denied, offer a substitute: ask if it would be okay to put a sign on the grounds where the nativity scene was to be placed. The sign should simply say: “We sought to display a manger scene on this spot, but we were censored by the authorities from doing so.” Win or lose, invite the media to cover this story (you can also sue in the event you lose).

An unusual manger scene development that caught our eye occurred in Naples, Italy. The Italians are famous for creating novel nativity scenes, but this year they outdid themselves by including President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle.

Bill Donohue told the press: “Look for the ACLU to import the Obama crèche and have it erected on the White House lawn, making the case that this is a free speech issue, not a church and state matter. And because some of the figurines hold a sign that says, ‘God Bless America,’ look for Obama’s fans to thank him for his blessing.”

Bill saved his best for last: “Shame on the Italians for overlooking Joe—there are any number of animals he could have represented.”

By the time Christmas comes, there will be more manger scene scenarios to address. Despite this craziness, it’s important not to lose a sense of humor.

In the matter of just a few days, the cultural elites on both coasts suppressed the speech of the Catholic League.

First it was the New York artistic community that reacted with intolerance; then the Hollywood community got in the game. In both instances, the elites started by bashing Catholicism, and then resorted to censorship when we challenged them. Rarely has there been such an explosion of bigotry and hypocrisy on display within a matter of days. That all of it was uncoordinated made it all the more disturbing.

On September 27, the Catholic League held a press conference outside the Edward Tyler Nahem gallery in midtown Manhattan. We were there to protest an exhibit by Andres Serrano featuring “Piss Christ,” the infamous photo of a crucifix submerged in a jar of the artist’s urine. After addressing the media, Bill Donohue sought to see the exhibit but was stopped in the building’s lobby by gallery officials. He was the only person denied. His offense? They objected to the content of his remarks to the media.

The West Coast example involved two confrontations. In September, we learned that the cable TV channel, FX, was scheduled to air “American Horror Story: Asylum” on October 17. The entire series depicts a habit-wearing promiscuous nun who beats inmates in a home for the criminally insane; for good measure, a doctor tortures his patients in this evil Catholic institution.

Donohue decided to write a full-page ad critical of the series, seeking to place it in The Hollywood Reporter. We were led to believe that everything was fine, including our credit card info, but then we learned via an e-mail on October 1 that the ad had been rejected. Lynne Segall, the publisher, nixed it saying the ad’s message “was not appropriate.”

The next day, October 2, we contacted Variety. Once again, everything from the initial exchange to our credit card info was deemed just fine. But then we learned via an e-mail that the ad had been rejected because of its “mudslinging” title (“FX Trashes Nuns”). Donohue refused to amend it (Variety has run many stories with the word “trashes” in the title); thus the ad never ran.

We got the last word. On October 15, two radio stations in Los Angeles, KFI (it carries Rush Limbaugh) and KTLK (the favorite liberal station) ran several taped statements by Donohue that were critical of FX, The Hollywood Reporter and Variety.

It is not at all surprising that it was the elites in New York City and Los Angeles who waged war on Catholicism. It’s what they do.

We paid for the ads with funds raised from the October appeal.