On May 11, Rep. Nancy Pelosi indicated she may vote against the nomination of the new House Chaplain. We immediately criticized her reasoning. On May 12, she said she had changed her mind. Here’s what happened.

When Rev. Patrick Conroy was selected by House Speaker John Boehner to be the new House Chaplain, the Jesuit priest won the plaudits of many Catholics, including Rep. Pelosi. But then Pelosi said she was having second thoughts, citing Conroy’s association with the Oregon Province of the Society of Jesus. Her objection? Claims of sexual abuse had been made against these Jesuits.

Importantly, there were no accusations made against Father Conroy. Moreover, all of the claims extended back decades. Most significantly, Father Conroy’s only involvement in this issue was heroic: he was a whistleblower who reported at least one case of an abusive priest.

We not only criticized Pelosi for the obvious—her embrace of the principle of “guilt by association”—we nailed her for her hypocrisy. When the San Francisco Board of Supervisors viciously condemned the Vatican for its position on gay adoptions, Pelosi was silent.

We also pointed out that Pelosi has never once criticized homosexuals in her district who go naked in the streets, sell Catholic symbols as sex toys, mock Jesus, ridicule nuns and disrespect the Eucharist. So for “Pelosi the Puritan” to now present herself, we said, was a little too late.

We are delighted that we played a role in getting Pelosi to pivot.

We’re calling it Scandal II. Scandal I was the Church-driven one that resulted in the explosion of priestly sexual abuse cases that came to light in 2002. Scandal II is driven by lawyers, activist groups, pundits and the media: it is responsible for the second wave of accusations.

Scandal II deals exclusively with old cases, and that’s because there are hardly any new ones. Moreover, those leading the charge have expressed no interest in the subject of sexual abuse, per se: they simply want to get the Catholic Church.

In other words, the politics of “gotcha” is in play: grand juries are reconvened after the first is found wanting; new subpoenas are issued about cases dating back several decades; new laws are proposed that exempt the public schools; and selective reporting about abuse cases in the Church are routine. In other words, the real scandal this time around stems from outside the Church.

This issue of Catalyst offers several stories on Scandal II. The Milwaukee and Philadelphia archdioceses have come under heavy scrutiny, and things are heating up again in Los Angeles and Boston. Consistent with our policy, we never defend the guilty. But we are resolute in our defense of the accused: priests, no less than any other segment of the population, are assumed innocent until proven guilty. That this even needs to be said is proof positive of the anti-priest environment that has taken root.

Some of those who have been leading the charge against the Catholic Church are vindictive, irrational and utterly without ethics. No reform will ever satisfy them. Make no mistake about it: they don’t want reconciliation, they want revenge.

Bill Donohue sent an op-ed article he had submitted to the Philadelphia Inquirer to the more than 200 pastors in the Philly archdiocese. While his article was not printed (they do not allow op-ed replies to editorials), the newspaper printed a summary letter of his on the subject. Donohue also wrote a half-page ad which was printed in theMilwaukee Journal Sentinel blasting steeple-chasing attorney Jeffrey Anderson.

New York Archbishop Dolan, speaking about the situation in his previous archdiocese, Milwaukee, sums it up well when he reminds us that some of the Church’s enemies are on record saying they won’t stop until an “out of business” sign is posted in front of every parish, school and church charitable center.
This is what we’re up against. This is what Scandal II is all about. Not to worry—the Catholic League will not back down and allow these vengeful activists to prevail.

The Thomas More Law Center has filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court asking it to reverse a Ninth Circuit ruling which upheld San Francisco’s hate-filled attack on the Catholic Church. The Ann Arbor-based law firm is representing the Catholic League.

This case began when a resolution was passed by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors that laced into the Catholic Church on March 21, 2006. Simply because the Catholic Church is opposed to homosexual adoption, government officials went on a tear.

They branded the Vatican a “foreign country” that was “meddling” in the affairs of San Francisco. They called the Catholic Church’s teachings on homosexuality “insulting to all San Franciscans,” “hateful,” “insulting and callous,” “defamatory,” “absolutely unacceptable” and “insensitive and ignorant.”

The Thomas More Law Center argues that the anti-Catholic resolution violated the First Amendment, which forbids “an official purpose to disapprove of a particular religion, religious beliefs, or of religion in general.” The government officials even went so far as to urge the Archbishop of San Francisco and Catholic Charities to defy Church directives.

Richard Thompson, who heads the Law Center, notes that the same Ninth Circuit which ruled against us barred a government display of the passive symbol of the war memorial cross on Mt. Soledad! The double standard could not be more plain.

On November 30, following a complaint registered by the Catholic League, the Smithsonian Institution pulled a video showing ants crawling all over Jesus on the Cross. The ensuing uproar was worldwide: the artistic community exploded in anger at both the Smithsonian and the Catholic League. Forums were held in many American cities, as well as in London, denouncing what we did.

The story began with an article on the Smithsonian exhibition, “Hide/Seek,” by Penny Starr, a writer for CNSNews.com; it is a media outlet run by Catholic League advisor Brent Bozell. Bill Donohue received a call at home the night before from a reporter for the New York Post asking his opinion of the video. He branded it “hate speech” and his comments appeared the next day in the paper; he was able to see the video online.

When he got to work on November 30, Donohue issued a news release saying he was contacting the House and Senate Appropriations Committees asking them to “reconsider federal financing” of the Smithsonian; the exhibition was privately funded. Donohue took this approach because the museum receives 70 percent of its financing from the federal government, and 80 percent of Americans are Christian.

Donohue outlined one very simple principle: if it is wrong for the government to pick the pocket of the taxpayers to promote religion, it should be equally wrong to pick their pockets to insult religion. No one he debated—and there were many—could offer a cogent reply. Most simply refused to comment.

Joining with the Catholic League in protesting the vile video were Rep. John Boehner and Rep. Eric Cantor. They, too, questioned the propriety of a government-funded institution hosting anti-Christian art. Within hours of these complaints, the Smithsonian released a statement saying they pulled the video.

The video was part of a larger gay and lesbian exhibition; it featured totally nude men kissing, men masturbating, sado-masochistic depictions, etc. All in a venue funded by the taxpayers at Christmastime.

Despite stories to the contrary, the Catholic League did not ask for the exhibition to be shut down. It did not ask for the video to be pulled. It did not ask for federal funding to be cut off. It simply asked for government officials to reconsider federal funding.

For this, we were subjected to an onslaught of the most outrageously abusive speech, receiving threatening letters from across the Atlantic, all through December. But we won, and they know it.