Bill Donohue comments on reaction to Pope Francis’ interview published yesterday by America magazine:

Pope Francis is a reformer; he is not a revolutionary. The distinction is important. His style and tone are different, but he shares with John Paul II and Benedict XVI the same doctrinal positions, and the same vision, of the Catholic Church.

Some conservatives are in mourning. They shouldn’t be. Some liberals are popping the cork. They shouldn’t be. Knee-jerk reactions are typically a function of ignorance, and that’s what we are witnessing. It would be so refreshing if people actually read what the pope said.

Already, there are some on the left who are seizing the moment to stifle the speech of loyal sons and daughters of the Church. Chris Cuomo tried that today with me, but it didn’t work. Don’t take my word for it—click here to see what happened.

Left-wing spin doctors, like those at GLAAD, are saying the pope “has recognized the harm that the Roman Catholic hierarchy’s campaigns against LGBT people and families have caused.” But no bishop has ever condemned gays for being gay. GLAAD is playing games: it wants to say that anyone who supports marriage, properly understood, is a bigot. Only ideologues believe such nonsense.

On Monday the pope said “a good Catholic meddles in politics.” Today he condemned abortion as representative of our “throwaway culture.” Both of these remarks were ignored by the media. Instead, they cherry pick his comments. This isn’t journalism—it’s politics.

Look for the authoritarian left to lecture the rest of us about fidelity to their interpretation of what the pope believes. They should instead practice fidelity to the teachings that the Holy Father upholds.

Bill Donohue comments on remarks by Pope Francis that were made last month in a three-part meeting in Rome with Catholic journalists; they were published today by America magazine:

The New York Times issued a “Breaking News Alert,” followed by a story, “Pope Bluntly Faults Church’s Focus on Gays and Abortion.” Here is what the pope said: “We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible.” He also said, “when we speak about these issues, we have to talk about them in a context.”

The pope is right that single-issue Catholics need to rise above their immediate concerns. He did not say we should not address abortion or homosexuality; he simply said we cannot be absorbed by these issues. Both the left and the right should heed his message.

The article in the New York Times says U.S. bishops will feel the pinch of these remarks as they often appear “to make combating abortion, gay marriage and contraception their top public policy priorities.” This is inaccurate. It is not the bishops who have made these issues front and center—it is the Obama administration. It would be more accurate to say the pope would find fault with the bishops if they did not resist these state encroachments on the religious-liberty rights of Catholics.

The pope also said the Church should be a “home to all” and not a “small chapel.” He did not mean by these words, as the Times alert said, that these remarks were a criticism of focusing on “doctrine, orthodoxy and a limited agenda of moral teachings.” In the previous paragraph, he speaks about “the sanctity of the militant church.” In the same paragraph where he mentions “small chapel,” he cites the “negative behavior” of priests and nuns, saying their conduct is that of an “unfruitful bachelor” and a “spinster.” He did not say what the Times attributed to him.

The pope wants us to reject abortion, and to help women who have had one to find peace with God. He wants us to reject gay marriage, but not gays because they are gay. Kudos to Pope Francis.

Bill Donohue comments on a letter sent yesterday by Cardinal Timothy Dolan, president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), to the nation’s bishops expressing the unanimous resolve of the USCCB’s Administrative Committee to continue the fight against the Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate:

Cardinal Dolan laid out the top three concerns of the bishops: (1) the HHS mandate unfairly defines religious employer in such a way as to reduce “religious freedom to the freedom of worship by dividing our community between houses of worship and ministries of service” (2) it reduces these ministries to a “second-class” status that unfairly burdens them (3) it does nothing to relieve the objections of for-profit businesses run by practicing Catholics.

The letter comes at a time when some have questioned the resolve of the bishops to fight the HHS mandate. Cardinal Dolan has put that concern to rest. The first objection outlined in the letter is key.

For over 200 years, Americans have cited their First Amendment right to religious liberty as the cornerstone of their inalienable rights. Then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton effectively tried to deep six this right by reinterpreting our God-given right as “freedom to worship”; President Barack Obama then began echoing her neologism in public.

Freedom to worship is what dictatorships observe: people are free to worship indoors—just don’t take it outside. In other words, this is an attempt by the federal government to privatize religion by limiting the scope of its exercise. If we did this to speech, it would stifle it. Religion is either freely and publicly expressed, or it is abridged.

The time has come for the HHS mandate to be withdrawn. To sign the Catholic League petition asking the Obama administration to pull the HHS mandate, click here.

Bill Donohue comments on the September 16 edition of “The Daily Show”:

Jon Stewart offered his thoughts on Pope Francis. “I love this guy! So, to sum it up, let me get this straight: gays are cool, priests can get married, and you don’t even have to believe in God to get to Heaven!”

This is all in good fun. Stewart should have stopped there.

Here is what he said next: “What, exactly, of Catholicism is left? I mean, you take away Jesus and celibacy—Catholic Church is just an ordinary restaurant that only serves wafers.” At this point, a woman is shown receiving Communion. This is followed by several obscenities.

They need to hire some practicing Catholics at “The Daily Show.” Someone needs to tell Stewart the difference between joking about celibacy and ridiculing the heart and soul of Catholicism. I am assuming, of course, that that would make a difference.

Contact Comedy Central spokesman Steve Albani: steve.albani@cc.com

Bill Donohue comments on the way the media are trying to push for reforms in the Catholic Church:

The internal affairs of any religion should be the business of its congregants, yet when it comes to the Catholic Church, the media offer a dispensation. Recent comments by the Vatican’s secretary of state, Archbishop Pietro Parolin, who simply restated the Church teaching on celibacy, have ignited the passions of the media.

Last week, NBC “Nightly News” anchor Brian Williams, and ABC “World News Tonight” anchor Diane Sawyer, both questioned whether the Church is going to drop its celibacy requirement for priests. NBC followed with a story by Tracy Connor that teased the issue further: “Meet Father Dad: How Married Priests Would Change the Catholic Church.” The conclusion: “More students in the seminaries, more people in the pews, and the pitter-patter of little feet padding through the rectory.” They forgot to explain why, if this were likely, the Protestant mainline denominations are sinking.

Here’s the real news: the Catholic Church in the Eastern Rite has long permitted married men to become priests, and it is in full communion with the pope; Anglican married priests who convert and become Catholic priests are accepted in the Catholic Church. As Archbishop Parolin said, the teaching on celibacy is a discipline, not a dogma, and therefore it can be changed. It was expected, but not mandated, that priests be celibate in the Church’s first thousand years; it was encoded as a discipline in the 12th century. So, yes, the Church can drop its stricture on celibacy. Whether it should is not for the media to decide.

Right on the heels of married priests comes the call for women priests. This is more difficult: Pope John Paul II effectively closed the door on this subject, citing the Church’s inability to change Scripture. No matter, many are huffing and puffing over the alleged ordination of an old lady two days ago in Albany: a faux Catholic group claims to have ordained Mary Theresa Streck. What is really amazing about this story is the serious coverage it was given by the media. They should have questioned why poor Mary wasn’t made a bishop.

Bill Donohue comments on NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell’s alleged concerns over the Redskins name:

When asked about the propriety of the Washington NFL team using the name Redskins, Roger Goodell said, “If one person is offended, we have to listen.” Baloney.

Goodell didn’t listen to Catholics when we pressed him not to invite the pop star Madonna to perform at Super Bowl XLVI in 2012; she has a history of vulgar anti-Catholic statements and acts. I wrote to Goodell on October 11, 2011, when it was rumored Madonna might be invited, but before the formal invitation was extended. He never replied. (It should be noted that the NFL disinvited ‘N Sync’s JC Chasez in 2004 over concerns he might use sexual lyrics while performing.)

What is most troubling about Goodell is his willingness to listen to elites, not the people. In the circles he runs in, no doubt his Catholic friends are not offended by Madonna. But millions of others are.

The same is true with the Redskins issue. To be sure, when Native American activists and leaders are asked about Indian mascot names, they object. But they are not representative of the people. In a survey of Native Americans conducted by Sports Illustrated, 83 percent said teams should not stop using Indian nicknames, mascots, characters and symbols.

Millions of Catholics are offended by Madonna. Moreover, real Indians like Indian mascot names. Goodell is thus twice wrong.

Bill Donohue analyzes the way the print media reacted to Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis after their first six months as pontiff:

We looked at the editorials in 15 of the nation’s largest newspapers to see what they said about the current pope, and his predecessor, after their first six months in office (Pope Francis will celebrate his first six months on September 13).

The papers we examined were: Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Boston Globe, Chicago Tribune, Dallas Morning News, Denver Post, Kansas City Star, Los Angeles Times, Miami Herald, New York Times, Philadelphia Inquirer, San Francisco Chronicle, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Sun-Sentinel, USA Today, Washington Post.

There were 14 editorials on Pope Benedict XVI and 11 on Pope Francis. The difference can probably be chalked up to the familiarity of the former versus the unfamiliarity of the latter. But there were more similarities than dissimilarities.

Two segments of the population dominated the media’s interest in the two popes: homosexuals and women. In the 25 editorials, homosexuals were cited 13 times, and women 15. With the exception of a few editorials that gave faint praise to Pope Francis for not judging gays of goodwill, they were uniformly critical of the teachings of the Catholic Church on both subjects. Only two newspapers, USA Today and the Washington Post, did not mention either subject explicitly.

There is no other religion that is subjected to this kind of micro-scrutiny. The elite media react to Islam and Judaism with cautious restraint, and with voyeuristic intrusiveness to Catholicism. Yet when it comes to teachings on homosexuality and women, there is very little difference between the three monotheistic religions. Judaism is respected, Islam is feared, and Christianity—especially Catholicism—is loathed.

To read a brief analysis of each newspaper’s editorials, click here.

On September 6, the California Senate passed SB 131, the bill that makes it easier for alleged victims of sexual abuse to sue if the molestation happened when they were a minor. But it does not apply to the public sector, just to institutions such as the Catholic Church.

Bill Donohue wrote a letter today to California Governor Jerry Brown about the bill. He will decide its fate; he has until October 13. To read the letter, click here.

Bill Donohue comments on candidates for office in New York City who took their campaign to area houses of worship yesterday; the primaries are tomorrow:

Yesterday, New York City candidates took their campaigns into African-American churches all over the city.

No one seems to care, but if the reverse were true—Catholics welcoming and endorsing politicians at Mass—holy hell would ensue. It just goes to show what an utter sham this business is about violating church and state lines.

No newspaper has been more critical of Catholic priests and bishops who merely address public issues from the pulpit than the New York Times. Worse, no newspaper has been less critical of black churches for routinely thumbing their nose at the First Amendment than the New York Times. At work is more than rank political partisanship: liberal white racism explains a lot.

To read how New York City candidates stumped in churches, click here.

Bill Donohue comments on New York City Controller-candidate Scott Stringer’s sexual connections:

We know Scott Stringer voted to retain the tax-exempt status of an organized band of child rapists (click here), and that he initially voted against Megan’s Law, a registry that tracks convicted sex offenders (click here). This got me thinking: Does Stringer have any more sexual baggage? It turns out he does. His close ties to Terry Richardson, the fashion photographer who exploits women of all ages, including his own mother, is something that deserves a public airing.

Stringer has a reputation for championing women’s rights, but his record and his associations make mince meat of this claim.

Stringer’s press secretary is Audrey Gelman (she also stars in the obscene HBO show, “Girls”). Her boyfriend is Terry Richardson, and he is the link to fat cats in the fashion industry who are financing Stringer’s campaign. All of them know of Richardson’s perversions. As the Wall Street Journal said last month, Stringer has “fashion photographer Terry Richardson on his team.” Indeed, Richardson opens the doors for Gelman, who in turn “corrals” fashion industry donors to give to Stringer.

If we can judge a politician by the people on his team, then Scott Stringer’s character is deeply flawed. There is too much about Richardson’s sordid history to fit on this page. To read a summary of it, click here.