The University of Oregon was home this spring to a vicious attack on Jesus. Almost as obscene as the cartoon was the incredibly weak response by the university’s president, Dave Frohnmayer.

The March edition of the Insurgent, a University of Oregon student newspaper, contained a large graphic cartoon depicting a naked Jesus on the Cross with an erection; there was also a graphic titled “Resurrection,” which showed a naked Jesus kissing another naked man, both sporting erections.

The pictures were only one small part of the March edition. Indeed, the entire issue was replete with the most egregious examples of hate speech targeted at Christians. For example, there were several cartoons of Jesus—including Jesus crucified—that were so gratuitously offensive that only the most depraved would defend them. That all of this occurred during Lent, at a state institution, is all the more disturbing.

This explosion of hate speech was a response to a decision reached by one of the Insurgent’s rivals, the Commentator, to publish the 12 Danish cartoons that recently so inflamed the Muslim world. An Insurgent editorial said that because the Commentator published depictions of Muhammad so as to “provoke dialogue,” they had a right to trash Christians as a way of provoking dialogue.

It was due to the tepid response of president Dave Frohnmayer that Bill Donohue decided to write a letter to every member of the Oregon legislature, the governor, the state’s three Catholic bishops, the president of the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities, and the chancellor of the Oregon University System (click here).

Bishop John Vlazny wrote a strong letter of protest to Frohnmayer, and State Senator Doug Whitsett said he will introduce legislation “that will allow university presidents to prevent such heinous student publications and to hold perpetrators and supporters of such hateful acts accountable for their actions on state university campuses.”

Students of Faith, a group formed in response to this assault, filed a grievance, but was turned down. Indeed, the student body that fielded the grievance said “there are no grounds for demanding an apology from the Student Insurgent.”

Contact the president at pres@oregon.uoregon.edu, or write to him at the University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403. See page 4 for more information.

Bill Donohue saw “The Da Vinci Code” the day it opened. Here are his comments:

“The movie theater was packed, and at the end of the film there were three or four people who clapped, and three of four who hissed. Most just walked out in a zombie-like fashion, eerily mimicking the characters on the screen.

“This was one of the most inane films I have ever seen. It takes forever to get going, and even when it finally does, it fails to sustain the momentum. Indeed, it somehow manages to revert back to its original slumbering style, delivering one of the most thoroughly anti-climatic endings ever to grace the screen.

“There are too many symbols and too many arcane codes, but the real reason the movie fails is because it lacks suspense, is hopelessly melodramatic, and is way too long. The few times the audience laughed was due to a quip made by one of the characters: these moments were much appreciated—it broke the boredom.

“As for the anti-Catholic nature of the movie, it is a credit to Ron Howard that he softened the edges. To be specific, the conversation about the divinity of Christ, and about religious belief in general, was portrayed with greater sensitivity to Christians than was depicted in the book.

“Had the movie been a success, the effect would have been troubling. But because it fails to persuade, this is one movie practicing Christians have nothing to worry about.”

On April 4, the Thomas More Law Center sued the City and County of San Francisco, and two local officials, on behalf of the 6,000 members of the Catholic League who live there; two Catholic individuals (one of whom is a Catholic League member) are also named in the suit.

At issue is an incredible resolution that was unanimously passed on March 21 by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. It was the most frontal assault ever levied against the Catholic Church by government officials in recent memory.

Because the Catholic Church supports the right of children to be raised by fathers and mothers, and not by various other combinations, the Board of Supervisors’ resolution called the Church’s teachings on adoption “hateful,” “discriminatory,” “insulting” and “callous,” adding that it “shows a level of insensitivity and ignorance.” The resolution also said, “It is an insult to all San Franciscans when a foreign country, like the Vatican, meddles with…this city’s existing and established customs and traditions….”

The Constitution, as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Warren Burger once said, “affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any.” The San Francisco Board of Supervisors, however, did just the opposite. They showed nothing but hostility to the Catholic Church, holding in contempt its right to craft its own teachings. “Make no mistake about it,” Bill Donohue told the media, “resident Catholics have been told, however indirectly, that the government does not look kindly on their right to publicly express their religion.”

Donohue ended his comments with a thought experiment: “Imagine what would have happened if the Vatican had condemned the San Francisco Board of Supervisors for ‘meddling’ in the internal affairs of the Catholic Church simply because the two entities disagreed on a public policy issue? Separation of church and state cuts both ways, and when agents of the state accuse the members of any religion of interfering in municipal affairs—merely because the two sides hold contrary views—the ineluctable result is the creation of a chilling effect on the rights of the faithful.”

Whether we win or not is not as important as the necessity of letting these bigots know their bigotry is going to cost them.

“The Da Vinci Code” is set to open May 19 amidst much controversy. The Catholic League remains adamant in its request for a disclaimer at the start of the film indicating that it is a fictional account.

Our beef all along has had less to do with the film’s director, Ron Howard, than with the author of the book upon which the movie is based, Dan Brown. He recently prevailed in a London court case against two authors who sued him for copyright infringement. We labeled that outcome “inconsequential” to our interests and took the occasion to denounce all the parties to the dispute as anti-Catholic frauds.

While Howard remains mute, one of the film’s co-producers, Brian Grazer, recently said on the “Today” show that the movie is “informed fiction” (he said it three times). He even went so far as to say, “We don’t feel it’s factual, it’s not historic, but it’s informed fiction, and it’s a thriller.” We were similarly pleased to note that a Sony spokesman dubbed the movie “a work of fiction that is not meant to harm any organization.” Now, we said, “the ball’s in his [Howard’s] court.”

We have been asked by other organizations to join with them in their protest of the movie. However, we don’t want to get sidetracked from our goal, which is to secure a disclaimer. We wish our allies well, but it is important for us not to be tied to several different agendas. In any event, Ron Howard’s reputation is on the line, whether he likes it or not.

The Catholic League is seeking a disclaimer from the director of “The Da Vinci Code,” Ron Howard, that would inform the audience that what they are about to see is based on fiction, not fact. An open letter to Howard making this request was published in the March 6 New York Times (see p. 13).

What necessitated this move is the duplicity of Dan Brown, the author of the book upon which the movie is based. At times, Brown has said the book is fiction, but at other times he has said it is factual. For example, on June 9, 2003, “Today” show host Matt Lauer asked Brown, “How much of this [the book] is based on reality in terms of things that actually occurred?” To which Brown said, “Absolutely all of it.”

It was Brown’s dishonesty that motivated Bill Donohue to write to Howard last year asking him to put a disclaimer at the beginning of the film noting that it is fiction; the letter was dated March 18, 2005. Because Howard chose not to answer, preferring instead to speak to reporters who then relayed to Donohue what he said for a comment, Donohue decided to write an open letter to him in the New York Times.

It’s not just Brown’s remark to Matt Lauer and others that is disturbing; the book opens with three “facts,” none of which is true. And to top it off, John Calley, one of the movie’s co-producers, has admitted that the film is “conservatively anti-Catholic.”

As Donohue has said on TV, there is not a single producer in Hollywood who would boast that he is associated with a movie that is anti-Semitic, racist or homophobic. But when it comes to Catholics, a different rule applies. Hence, our vigorous response.

Sony, the company that is releasing the movie, and director Ron Howard, have both inserted disclaimers into their films in the past. Sony issued one in “The Merchant of Venice,” and Howard allowed one in “A Beautiful Mind,” so it is not persuasive to say they are averse to disclaimers.

We are happy that the Da Vinci Outreach, a national initiative to expose “the anti-Catholic lies” in the movie, has formally endorsed the league’s request for a disclaimer. We expect others will join this campaign.

Recent attempts to smear Chicago Archbishop Francis Cardinal George and Los Angeles Archbishop Roger Cardinal Mahony were met with a strong response from the Catholic League.

Mary Gail Frawley-O’Dea, a psychologist who addressed the bishops in 2002, recently sent Cardinal George a letter saying he might be considered “an accessory to soul murder” because he didn’t act quickly enough to remove an accused priest, the Rev. Daniel McCormack, from ministry.

What Frawley-O’Dea didn’t say is that the police and local prosecutors found no credible allegations against the priest. Nor did she mention that the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services investigated Father McCormack but never notified the archdiocese that it was doing so. And even after it concluded that he may be guilty, it still said nothing! Besides, Cardinal George apologized for not acting quicker.

Cardinal Mahony recently made some controversial remarks about pending immigration legislation, and it was this subject that led KABC talk show host Doug McIntyre to call Cardinal Roger M. Mahony a “molester”: he said the “M stands for molester.” We branded the smear libelous.

We concluded our news release by saying, “There is nothing bigoted about criticizing any priest, including the pope. But what Frawley-O’Dea and McIntyre have done isn’t criticism—it’s hate speech.”

The sex abuse scandal in the Catholic Church has triggered a rash of draconian bills designed to deal with this and related matters. The states most guilty of trying to subordinate the Church to the state are Colorado, Massachusetts and New Hampshire. The Catholic League has been active in opposing the proposed laws in all three states.

In Colorado, three bills are pending that would suspend the statute of limitation for child sexual abuse lawsuits for two years; they even allow some institutions to be sued for vicarious liability. The bills, however, apply only to private entities: public schools are purposely given an exemption.

Colorado’s three bishops have spoken against these bills. Bill Donohue wrote a letter to all Colorado lawmakers supporting the bishops in an effort to derail these blatantly unfair pieces of legislation (see pp. 4-5). He asked the lawmakers to either amend these bills so that all institutions are equally covered, or to reject them as discriminatory in both intent and practice.

In Massachusetts, the House and Senate introduced bills, similar in nature, that would require religious organizations to file an annual financial statement with the state. After the Senate version passed, those opposed to this legislation organized to defeat it in the House. They did so handily by a vote of 147-3. But it took a united effort among groups across the religious spectrum to do so. For more on this issue, see p. 6.

New Hampshire is now entertaining a bill that would violate the Sacrament of Reconciliation. The sponsor of the bill, Mary Stuart Gile, maintains that any priest who learns of the sexual abuse of a child in the confessional is obligated to report the details to the authorities. We squared off against Gile in 2003 when she tried the same maneuver, and we eventually won. Now we’re at it again. See p. 6 for a more complete account.

There have been other attempts by state legislators to rein in the Church, but none have gone quite this far. At stake are moral, legal and ecclesiastical issues of the highest magnitude.

None of these proposed bills has yet to become law, and it is not likely that the courts would sustain them if they did. But nothing can be taken for granted in this hostile environment.

The Respect Life Ministry of the Oakland Diocese recently waged a pro-life PR campaign in BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) trains, but it was literally attacked by local anarchists.

One of the ads, “9 MONTHS,” called attention to the amount of time the Supreme Court allows abortions to take place. The other ad read, “The Supreme Court says you can choose: after the heart starts beating, after its arms and legs appear, after all organs are present, after the sex is apparent, after it sucks its thumb, after it responds to sounds, after it could survive outside the womb.” They ended by asking, “Have We Gone Too Far?”

Most of the ads were destroyed by the anarchists. But this didn’t stop the Oakland Diocese from replacing them. Many of the placards were covered with the most incredibly vicious anti-Catholic and obscene remarks, and some of them were torn to shreds.

In our remarks to the media, we said that “Most Americans, including those who support abortion rights, have serious reservations about abortion-on-demand. But not these people. Abortion is regarded as sacrosanct because it affirms their vision of genital liberation—every sexual act that can be performed must be performed, and none should be burdened by pregnancy or disease.”

The pro-life campaign by the Oakland diocese is part of a bigger effort sponsored by the bishops’ conference. If more dioceses followed Oakland’s lead, it would surely help to subvert the culture of death.

On Friday, December 2, Bill Donohue received a Christmas card from the President and the First Lady (see below). He was pleased to get the card and was only slightly miffed to discover that it did not say “Merry Christmas.” But later in the day he found something out that made him perturbed.

Alan Cooperman, the senior religion reporter for the Washington Post, called Donohue at the end of the day on December 2 to learn of his reaction to the generic White House holiday card. Donohue said he was not disturbed by it because he assumed that all presidents issued these neutered holiday cards. But when Cooperman told him that this was incorrect—that every president from FDR to Bush’s father in 1992 had issued at least one card while in office that said “Merry Christmas”—that changed things.

When Donohue learned of this news, he told Cooperman the following: “This clearly demonstrates that the Bush administration has suffered a loss of will and that they have capitulated to the worst elements in our culture.” That quote wound up on the front page of the Washington Post on December 7, and with it came a barrage of media requests to interview the Catholic League president.

Donohue has met with President Bush on several occasions and considers him to be a good man. But the Catholic League is not a Republican Catholic organization anymore than it is a Democratic Catholic organization. It is a Catholic organization.

Meanwhile, Lands’ End did not anger the Catholic League the way Wal-Mart did (e.g. we never called for a boycott), but we were nonetheless not too happy with the way it handled Christmas. An employee in the store’s customer relations department e-mailed customers informing them that “we have adopted the ‘holiday’ terminology as a way to comply with one of the basic freedoms granted to all Americans: freedom of religion. We recognize that Christmas is a Christian holiday, and one of the foremost teachings of the Christian faith is a love for one’s fellowman—no matter what his race, religion or creed.”

We found this insulting and asked those who visited our webpage to register a complaint. One week after we complained, Lands’ End issued an apology and we immediately dropped the matter.

WHITE HOUSE “HOLIDAY” CARD…

In fairness, members should know that on December 20, the Catholic League received the following e-mail Christmas Greeting from President Bush:

Christmas 2005

‘Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel’ which means, God with us.
Matthew 1:23

More than 2,000 years ago, a virgin gave birth to a Son, and the God of heaven came to Earth. Mankind had received its Savior, and to those who had dwelled in darkness, the light of hope had come. Each Christmas, we celebrate that first coming anew, and we rejoice in the knowledge that the God who came to Earth that night in Bethlehem is with us still and will remain with us forever.

Christmas is a season of hope and joy, a time to give thanks for the blessing of Christ’s birth and for the blessings that surround us every day of the year. We have much to be thankful for in this country, and we have a responsibility to help those in need. Jesus calls us to help others, and acts of kindness toward the less fortunate fulfill the spirit of the Christmas season.

On Christmas, we pray for freedom, justice and peace on Earth. We remember those who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our country and for our freedom, and we ask for God’s blessing on their loved ones. We ask God to watch over all of our men and women in uniform. Many are serving in distant lands, helping to advance the cause of freedom and peace. Our entire Nation is grateful to them and prays for their safe return.

Laura and I send our best wishes for a blessed and merry Christmas.

GEORGE W. BUSH

By all accounts, Samuel Alito is a brilliant, honorable man who is well qualified to be on the U.S. Supreme Court. But he has his enemies, almost all of whom are driven by ideology. There are some, too, who fear that if his nomination succeeds, the high court will be dominated by Catholics.

Prominent among Alito’s critics is Americans United for Separation of Church and State. The radical organization released a report on Alito in December that was rife with bogus charges.

The report assumes that Alito departing from rulings held by Sandra Day O’Connor would be somehow unfair, thus implying that Alito should be placed in O’Connor’s jurisprudential straitjacket. Even more absurd is the spectacle of an organization, which is ostensibly interested in religious liberty, going bonkers whenever it discovers that Alito values religious speech as much as secular speech.

Similarly, the report faults Alito for ruling that a first-grade child has a right to draw a picture of Jesus and have it displayed in school. (Alito is also hammered for not wanting to censor the same kid from reading a selection from the Bible in class.) And Alito is criticized for ruling that religious symbols like the crèche and menorah may be placed outside city hall if accompanied by secular symbols.

President Bush made an outstanding choice in selecting Samuel Alito. He deserves to be confirmed.