The same judge, John G. Heyburn II, who ruled on October 7, 2005 that the Holy See is a foreign state that enjoys certain immunities now says that the same lawsuit can go forward. That’s because a few technicalities that stopped him from initially dismissing the suit altogether are no longer relevant. “There’s an odor to this and it stinks,” we told the press.

The lawyer, William McMurry, won a $25.7 million settlement against the Archdiocese of Louisville in 2003 and managed to cream $10.3 million off the top for himself and his legal team. What motivated him to continue his pursuit was the revelation in 2003 that a 1962 Vatican document, leaked to the press, allegedly shows how the Vatican planned to cover up cases of sexual abuse.

But the document, as we’ve pointed out many times before, not only does not implicate the Vatican—it proves how serious it took cases of alleged abuse. For example, it prescribed penalties for any priest who “whether by words or signs or nods of the head” might convey a sexual advance in the confessional (our italics). It also prescribed penalties for the penitent if he or she didn’t report such conduct. In other words, the 1962 document is a model of excellence.

Besides, accusing the Vatican is bogus. “I have reviewed thousands of pages of documents surrendered by the Archdiocese of Boston,” said victims’ attorney Roderick MacLeish Jr., “but haven’t seen a scintilla of evidence showing the Vatican knew what was going on.” None of this matters to McMurry, whose anger at the Vatican involves his once being denied entrance to St. Peter’s Basilica because he was wearing shorts. (We couldn’t make this stuff up even if we wanted to.)

McMurry’s clients are Michael Turner, James H. O’Bryan and Donald E. Poppe. Turner alleges that over three decades ago he was molested by a priest; last year he said he “thought” the local bishop was following Vatican orders dealing with his case. O’Bryan says a priest touched him through his pants pocket in 1928, and Poppe’s alleged molester died in 1983.

In our concluding comments, we said, “This is what we’ve come to—a free-for-all against the Catholic Church.”

In a recent edition of The New Republic magazine, there was an article by Damon Linker titled “A Mormon in the White House.” Appearing around the same time there was a piece in the Wall Street Journal about the execution of Saddam Hussein. The article was written by Marty Peretz, editor-in-chief of The New Republic. The two articles read together provide great insight into the way this influential journal of opinion thinks about religion.

Damon Linker doesn’t want Mitt Romney to be president, and that’s because Romney is purportedly pro-life and opposed to gay marriage. Moreover, Romney’s religion, Mormonism, has too many certitudes for Linker to swallow. This is not surprising given Linker’s nervousness about Roman Catholicism: he recently attempted to undermine the credibility of Father Richard John Neuhaus (for whom he once worked).

What accounts for Linker’s fury? He is mad at Neuhaus because the New York priest proudly proclaims his religion to be the one, true faith. Now it is Romney who has shaken Linker. Nice to know, too, that he decided to publish his latest hit job in the pages of a magazine not known for its kindness to Catholicism. Most Americans agree to disagree about matters religious, but this is obviously virgin territory for Linker; he would rather cast aspersions.

In his newspaper article, Peretz disagreed with Vatican official Cardinal Renato Martino, who objected to the execution of Saddam. That’s fine, but what was troubling was his substitution of derision for reason. He derided Martino’s comment that we must protect life from “conception until natural death,” saying, “are we supposed to imagine that Saddam is an innocent unborn fetus in his mother’s womb?”

Does this mean that Peretz has all of a sudden become pro-life? Not a chance. He then asked, “Does Cardinal Martino have no conception of the dimension of the tyrant’s crimes?” To which it must be asked: Does Peretz have no conception of what a principled position entails? He further labeled Martino’s remarks “pabulum,” noting his 16 years working at the U.N. “Sixteen years,” Peretz said, “poor man, no wonder, he’s a little overwrought and also disingenuous.”

Poor Marty—he’s been at The New Republic twice as long as Martino’s stint at the U.N. Maybe this could be what accounts for his funk.

In a statement that we released to the media, we said “The New Republicis scared to death about religion, save, of course, for religion lite. This latest twin shot shows how unnerved it has become. Ironically, for a magazine worried about certitude, it speaks with the most infallible voice this side of the academy.”

What really got our goat was learning that CBS Outdoor had previously rejected ads from PETA, the animal rights group. The company said some of their ads were “pejorative.” No doubt they were. The real question is why they didn’t find the Eternal Gospel Church ad offensive.

In any event, we prevailed and justice was ultimately done.

Note on the billboards below: MMM is 666 on the telephone, a.k.a. “The Mark of the Beast.”

It really can’t get much worse than this: a politician inviting Catholics to a party celebrating abortion and featuring a speaker from an anti-Catholic group. But that’s exactly what happened on January 22, the anniversary of Roe v. Wade.

Roger Limoges, who works for Frances Kissling’s Catholics for a Free Choice, spoke at Trinity Brewhouse in Providence, Rhode Island. The event was billed as a party that “welcomes Catholics to a free choice celebration marking the 34th anniversary of Roe v. Wade.” It was strange enough that only Catholics were invited to this event, but what was most disturbing was the fact that the owner of the pub, Joshua Miller, is a state senator. Moreover, on the Trinity website is a picture of the Last Supper with various American celebrities substituting for Christ and the apostles.

“Anyone who would throw a party celebrating the right to kill babies is bad enough,” we said in a statement to the media, “but when Catholics are invited to attend an event that features a speaker from an anti-Catholic organization, a line of decency has been crossed. That a sitting state senator would host such a party is even sicker.”

We decided it was important that everyone in the Rhode Island legislature learned of State Senator Miller’s idea of a good time, and that is why we sent them a copy of our news release. We also asked all those who accessed our web page to contact Miller at work.

Miller was furious and was forced to issue his own news release saying he was simply making his pub available to Kissling’s local group. He also complained about the “vicious” e-mails he was getting “from across the country.” Maybe next year he’ll think twice before offending Catholics again.

What started out as a collision course between Nebraska State Senator Lowen Kruse and the Catholic League was avoided when the legislation in question was modified to allay the Catholic League’s concerns.

In January, Senator Kruse introduced a bill to the state’s unicameral legislature that sought to curb underage drinking. In addition to banning minors from consuming alcohol in their own homes, the bill extended to places of worship during religious rites.

In response to protests from religious leaders of various faiths, Kruse claimed that it was unlikely that authorities would enforce the ban on wine used in Communion services. We weren’t convinced and demanded that the bill be changed at once. We pointed out that even under Prohibition there was a religious exemption for wine. On our website, we provided Nebraskans with the appropriate contact information and encouraged them to let their representatives know how they feel.

Senator Kruse, a Methodist minister, then announced a compromise—he would allow up to one-half ounce of alcohol in a religious ceremony. We rejected this offer, maintaining it was not the business of government to be measuring wine at Catholic Masses. Senator Kruse then agreed to debate Bill Donohue on the Catholic Channel’s “Seize the Day” show on Sirius Satellite Radio.

The debate took place on February 2, but it wasn’t much of a contest: Kruse yielded on all counts and modified his bill so as not to burden religious liberty. Donohue congratulated him for his reasonableness and wished him the best.

In January, the New York Times ran a story about two 20-year-olds and an 18-year-old who were arrested for stealing statues of baby Jesus from nativity scenes over the past two years. They hit the New York suburban communities of Suffern and Haverstraw several times in 2005 and 2006. The police said they would not charge them with committing hate crimes; each was being charged with 14 counts of petty larceny.

On the same day, WNBC.com reported that a 20-year-old was arrested for kicking a menorah in the Long Island community of St. James. A few days later, a Long Island teen was also charged with destroying a menorah. Both were charged with a felony for committing a hate crime and could face seven years in prison.

This is so interesting. The reason the menorah is allowed in New York City public schools is because the authorities have branded it a secular symbol, and the reason the crèche is barred is because the same authorities have branded it a religious symbol. Yet when menorahs are vandalized, the guilty are charged with a hate crime and may spend seven years behind bars for their felony, while those who vandalize several crèches—over a two year period—are given a slap on the wrist.

We have long maintained that hate-crime laws evince a bias of their own. These recent events prove it.

In the January edition of Esquire, there was a comment by James D. Watson justifying anti-Semitism. Watson, who won the Nobel Prize for his co-discovery of DNA, offered as one of his musings a rhetorical question: “Should you be allowed to make an anti-Semitic remark?” To which he said, “Yes, because some anti-Semitism is justified.”

Bill Donohue responded to this and much more in a new release:

“The ADL’s response to Watson’s remark is, ‘Those are very strange comments coming from an individual like that.’ What is ‘very strange’ is not Watson’s comment, but the ADL’s puzzlement. Watson is a eugenicist who, like Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, is a racist. Unlike Sanger, who was opposed to abortion, Watson is not only pro-abortion, he is on record recommending that handicapped infants be killed immediately after birth.

“In 2000, Watson told an audience at the University of California at Berkeley that African Americans are genetically prone to laziness, obesity and have more active sex drives than whites. This is the same man who thinks that we should change the legal definition of ‘person’ to infants older than three days: this way parents would be able to decide if their child should live or die.

“Anyone remotely informed about the ‘population control’ fanatics knows that they have always pushed for a public-policy filter that would ‘weed out’ the ‘undesirables.’ To be specific, those who are below par in cognitive abilities or physical attributes, as well as those who belong to certain racial, religious or ethnic groups, should not enjoy equal rights; at the very least, their numbers should be restricted. Sound familiar?

“James Watson gave up his Catholicism at the age of 12 for birdwatching. Despite his scientific heroics, we’d all have been better off if he never took his eyes off the birds.” In short, this Noble Prize winner is a loser.

In 2005, there was a 19 percent increase in complaints of misconduct over 2004, and a 43 percent increase in substantiated cases. Things got worse in 2006: there was a 38 percent increase in complaints of wrongdoing over 2005, and a 68 percent jump in substantiated claims. In both 2005 and 2006, approximately a third of these cases involved the sexual abuse of minors.

So why isn’t this big news? Because the figures apply to New York City school employees, that’s why. By the way, these figures show that the rate of substantiated sexual abuse of minors committed by New York City public school workers is approximately three times the rate found among Catholic priests nationwide. Importantly, two-thirds of the school employees of New York City who molest kids are teachers.

Again, none of this will be given the prominence it deserves. There will be no television specials, no new laws passed by state legislators and no cheap-shot jokes aimed at teachers. Remember, in 2005 there were five cases of sexual misconduct confirmed among 42,000 priests. That didn’t make much of a stir in the news either, and for the same reason. In other words, when the figures make the public school industry look bad, they’re given short shrift by the media. Ditto when the figures don’t make the Catholic Church look bad.

Yes, it makes for a bigger story when a priest molests a minor, but what does it say about the media when they treat misconduct by teachers with aplomb? Or consider how they treat a rabbi who molests a minor. TheNew York Post recently did a story about a Brooklyn yeshiva being slapped with its fourth sex lawsuit, the latest involving alleged abuse by a “highly regarded rabbi.” It merited four sentences on p. 26. Which was more coverage than was yielded by the New York Daily News, the New York Times and Newsday, all of which failed to report the story.

As we said to the press, “None of this is a surprise to us—we see stuff like this everyday. But enough is enough.”

Utah and New York are making strides in the battle for school choice, following the lead of Arizona. Newark, New Jersey, is also making waves. On the run are the teachers’ unions; they will do nearly anything to maintain their government-created near-monopoly on education.

In February, the Utah House approved a private voucher program—by one vote—that would have dramatic results. It would give families a school voucher that would range from $500 to $3,000, based on their income. Republicans largely supported the bill and Democrats largely opposed it.

New York State Governor Eliot Spitzer’s education budget was revealed at the start of February. It was good news for Catholics. In 2002, then-New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer released a “Report on Non-Public Education” that explored many ways in which public aid to parochial schools could be achieved without violating the First Amendment. Last year, Spitzer, who is a Democrat, endorsed the concept of tuition tax credits, and now as New York State Governor he is making good on his commitment.

Spitzer’s budget proposal calls for a $1,000 tax break for families who elect to send their children to parochial schools.

For several years now, there has been an ongoing fight in Arizona between those who believe in school choice and those who, like the ACLU and the education establishment, oppose it. The Arizona legislature has authorized corporate donors a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for contributions to private, non-profit school tuition organizations. The matter is now before the courts—for the third time!

Newark’s Mayor Cory Booker is one of the nation’s leading supporters of school choice. He is following the Arizona model by proposing tax credits of $20 million a year collectively for corporations which support scholarships for low-income students in five cities with troubled schools.

As might be expected, the public school industry is opposing these inclusive approaches to education. It prefers the politics of exclusion and is decidedly anti-choice: the public school teachers’ unions, always threatened by competition, would like to deny any tax relief for parents—many of them poor—who prefer a Catholic school to a public one. In many cases, this is tantamount to condemning the poor to access services no rich person would ever choose.

It is no secret that Catholic schools in the inner city have proven to be one of the most important causative agents allowing for upward mobility. That those who claim an allegiance to the poor would balk at school choice proposals shows how hypocritical they are. But they are fighting an uphill battle as more and more African Americans and Latinos are demanding a fair shake in education.

On February 7, “The View” panelist Joy Behar said that people should “follow their heart” in dealing with sexuality. She then offered, “That is why a lot of the priesthood is so screwed up right now.” Rosie O’Donnell followed with “Celibacy is not part of the human condition. It is not normal, right, everyone is a sexual being.”

This ABC-TV show has definitely gotten out of control ever since Rosie O’Donnell joined the panel. The blame belongs to Barbara Walters, who is both a co-owner of the show (along with ABC) and the principal host.

In our comments to the press, we made mention of the fact that on the same day that they offended Catholics, there was an article in the New York Daily News about the sex lives of seven women living in the New York area. “Sarah DiMuro, a 30-year-old blonde,” we said, “must be happy to know that according to the great sage, Rosie O’Donnell, she is an abnormal human being. DiMuro is a virgin.”

“The View” is now the most anti-Catholic talk show on television. On four occasions between September and the end of December, O’Donnell has lashed out at the Catholic Church. Ditto for Joy Behar. Their relentless and profoundly ignorant attacks on the Catholic Church and its teachings would never be tolerated by Walters if it were Judaism or Islam that was under attack. But when it comes to Catholicism, she gives these two “raised” Catholics all the time they want to vent their adolescent anger.

“What happened today was a set-up that was cleared by Walters,” Bill Donohue said. “How do I know? Because the topic of discussion wasn’t gays or the Catholic Church—it was Ted Haggard, the disgraced evangelical leader who claims he is now a heterosexual again. This has nothing to do with Catholicism, but it has everything to do with the anti-Catholic agenda of O’Donnell, Behar and Walters. Walters just sat there today, never once expressing disagreement with anything her panelists had to say about Catholicism.”

Barbara Walters was once known as a pioneer in the broadcasting industry. She is now known as playing house mom to bigots.