Bill in the news (Religion News Service):

Catholic League president Bill Donohue defends Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI from his critics. READ MORE HERE

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on critical reactions to prayer and religious conversations:

A half century ago, those who were not religious tended not to be anti-religious, so they had no impact on the faithful. That’s changed. With almost three in ten Americans not adhering to any religion, there has been an increase in secular militancy, the likes of which we have never seen before in this country.

It’s not just the increase in the “nones” that is troubling (those who answer “none” when asked what their religious affiliation is), it’s the changing cultural milieu that is a problem. We can thank the ruling class –the elites who command our most important institutions—for this development. Their hostility to religion is so strong that they even object to people praying, or talking about religion, in public.

A high school student from Plainwell, Michigan was suspended for three days this year when he was caught talking to another student about religion on school property. The conversation was private and there was no attempt at proselytizing: the student who was engaged in dialogue shared the convictions of the student who opened the conversation.

The suspended student says that he was told by a teacher that he must stop talking about his Christian religion with other students for fear of hurting their feelings. Those who might overhear their commentary, he was informed, might be offended or feel unsafe. Furthermore, he was told that it was his responsibility to contact school officials if he heard about hurtful comments made by other students. His case is now in federal court.

A year ago, an off-duty police officer in Louisville, Kentucky was suspended for four months for praying outside an abortion clinic. He stopped to pray with his father, who was part of a pro-life group. He was wearing his police uniform at the time but tried to cover it up with his coat. His lawyer said the cop did not engage in political activity and prayed quietly outside the facility. He recently won a settlement from Louisville of $75,000.

In a suburb of Seattle, a high school football coach was fired for engaging in voluntary silent prayer with his players after games. The school told him he should have prayed in a school-hall closet or the press box—that way he would not be seen by other students—and not on the 50-yard-line. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear his case.

Ironically, the first person I ever met who exhibited a prayer scare was the founder of the ACLU, Roger Baldwin. I interviewed him in his home in New York City in 1978 (it was part of my New York University Ph.D. dissertation). Here is the exchange (it can be found in my first book, The Politics of the American Civil Liberties Union):

“Donohue: The ACLU has even gone so far as to deny the right of people to voluntarily take the time during the day, as a schoolchild, to say a prayer.

Baldwin: Not on school time.

Donohue: Well, whose rights are being infringed upon if there is a silent prayer voluntarily said by a student?

Baldwin: If they don’t say anything? You mean if they don’t—-

Donohue: Right. Are you afraid they are going to proselytize the rest of the class?

Baldwin: Well, they tried to get around it. They’ve tried to get around it even further than you by calling it meditation.

Donohue: What’s wrong with that?

Baldwin: You don’t say anything about God or religion or anything. I suppose you can get by with that but it’s a subterfuge, because the implication is that you’re meditating about the hereafter or God or something.

Donohue: Well, what’s wrong with that? Doesn’t a person have the right to do that? Or to meditate about popcorn for that matter?

Baldwin: I suppose that—it sounds very silly to me because it looks like an obvious evasion of the constitutional provision.”

In the three current aforementioned cases, and the Baldwin one, there is something going on here that transcends any alleged constitutional problem.

It’s ironic: These people accuse religious Americans, especially those who talk about religion in public, or pray in public, as being irrational, yet their prayer scare makes no rational sense. What are they really afraid of?

The cancel culture is more than just about speech—it’s about religious thoughts. These mind-control freaks are beyond weird. Indeed, they are a danger to a free society.

Catholic League Forum is a weekly Q&A discussion between Catholic League president Bill Donohue and director of communications Mike McDonald on contemporary issues of interest to the Catholic community. This week, Bill and Mike discuss Pope Emeritus Benedict’s response to a German report on clergy abuse. They also discuss President Biden’s support of sex engineering and the hypocrisy of the NFL when it comes to racism. To watch click here.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on a candidate for public office in New York City:

Fernando Cabrera is not a household name, even in most parts of New York City. But he has a distinguished career, and word has it that he may land a job in the administration of New York City Mayor Eric Adams. Unfortunately, the fact that he is a practicing Christian is leading extremists in the gay community to oppose him.

The Catholic League is not endorsing or opposing Cabrera. Moreover, we do not know him. But from what we have learned, attempts to portray him a bigot are scurrilous. Indeed, it is his critics who are showing their bigoted stripes.

Cabrera is well known in the Bronx for his years of service. In the 1980s, after working in Richmond, Virginia as the Director of New Life for Youth, a faith-based rehabilitation center for young men beset with alcohol and drug problems, he left to found New Life Bronx in 1988. He was later elected to a seat on the New York City Council, representing the Bronx as a Democrat.

Cabrera, who holds a Ph.D. in Counseling, has spent his entire professional life in service to troubled youth. He also started the first Mental Health Counseling graduate program in New York State. More recently, he raised money to help the hurricane victims in Honduras.

Given his stellar credentials, it is shameful that Adams did not appoint him to head the Office of Community Mental Health. He was considered, but gay activists lobbied against him. News stories suggest that he may be appointed to some other position in the Adams administration.

Much of the opposition against Cabrera stems from a 2014 YouTube video wherein he criticized abortion and gay marriage. There is absolutely nothing in his remarks that was in any way derogatory or insulting. He simply made the case that in Uganda, Christians have made much progress combating HIV, noting their opposition to gay marriage.

For this, Cabrera has been unjustly tagged as an “anti-gay pastor.” Yet there is no evidence to support this invidious accusation. Millions of decent Christians believe that marriage should be limited to a union between one man and one woman. To claim that they are bigots because of their religious beliefs is the real bigotry.

Some gay activists have labeled Cabrera “a vile homophobic bigot.” Others have gone so far as to compare him to David Duke, the neo-Nazi. This is a vicious smear.

If Eric Adams allows these anti-Christian bigots to win, he will be sending a message to Catholics and Protestants throughout the nation, not just the city: “No Christians Need Apply.”

Contact Mayor Adams: pressoffice@cityhall.nyc.gov

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the Super Bowl halftime show:

The National Football League (NFL), under the tutelage of Commissioner Roger Goodell, is ever so proud of its record combating racism. Two years ago, Goodell said, “We at the National Football League condemn racism and the systematic oppression of black people.”

To that end, he approved such things this season as the singing of the Black national anthem at games, end zone inscriptions that read “End Racism,” and a host of anti-racist messages printed on the players’ apparel.

What about the behavior of the players? After all, it is widely known that the “N” word is commonly used by black football players. About ten years ago this became a burning issue, so in 2014 the NFL told game officials to penalize players who used the word on the field.

At that time Seahawks cornerback Richard Sherman, now with Tampa Bay, objected, saying, “It’s an atrocious idea. It’s in the locker room and on the field at all times. I hear it almost every series out there on the field.” Since that time the NFL has cracked down even more.

Section 3 of the current NFL Rulebook is titled, “Unsportsmanlike Conduct.” The second listing in Article 1 prohibits “Using abusive, threatening, or insulting language or gestures to opponents, teammates, officials, or representatives of the League.”

But is this all a PR stunt? It sure looks this way.

For example, why is the NFL showcasing foul-mouthed singers—who specialize in using the “N” word—during its halftime festivities this Sunday?

Five musical celebrities will be featured on Super Bowl Sunday. Two of them, Mary J. Blige and Eminem, are not known to drop the “N” word. But three of them are: Dr. Dre, Kendrick Lamar and Snoop Dogg. In addition, their promiscuous use of vulgarities, which qualify as “abusive” or “insulting” language, is well known. Here is a sample.

One of Dr. Dre’s songs is called, “A Nigga Witta Gun.” One of the lyrics says, “You’re a motherf****** liar, nigga.” Another says, “Listen up, nigga, you know Lucifer?”

He has a song, “Bitch Niggaz,” which goes like this: “Bitch niggas, Bitch niggas, Bitch-ass niggas.” There is also, “I meet more bitch niggas than hoes, look here.” Another favorite line is, “These niggas don’t know what the f*** is going on.” He cites the “N” word 39 times.

“The Day The Niggaz Took Over” features, “I got my finger on the trigger, some niggas wonder why, But living in the city, it’s do or die.” Then there is this gem: “How many niggas are ready to loot?”

Kendrick Lamar has a song titled, “F*** Your Ethnicity,” which, not surprisingly, includes the line, “F*** your ethnicity, nigga.” He says it again, just in case the listeners missed it the first time.

In his song, “The Art of Peer Pressure,” Lamar sings about “Me and my niggas four deep in a white Toyota,” noting that “Hood niggas with bad intentions” can be a problem. He drops the “N” word 25 times.

There are 21 uses of the “N” word in “m.A.A.d City.” Here’s a classic: “Seen a light-skinned nigga with his brains blown out.”

Snoop Dogg has a lovely song called, “My F**kin House,” wherein he sings, “This is my mother’s f**kin’ house nigga.”

Why is the NFL Commissioner promoting those who love the “N” word during the Super Bowl halftime show? Wasn’t he supposed to be discouraging the use of it? What message does he think will stick with young viewers? The one that says the NFL prohibits the “N” word? Or the one which says the NFL sanctions its usage?

Goodell can’t have it both ways. Either the “N” word and the “F” word are verboten, or they are welcome. If he is making an exception for entertainers, then he can’t be taken seriously. Is it the big bucks garnered from halftime commercials that override your interest in civility, Mr. Goodell? If so, what does that make you?

Contact Brian McCarthy, VP of Corporate Communications, NFL:
Brian.McCarthy@nfl.com

Catholic League president Bill Donohue shows why President Biden is not in charge:

If ever we needed definitive proof that Joe Biden is not running the White House, it was laid bare when he came to the defense of sexual engineers in the schools.

On February 8, he tweeted, “I want every member of the LGBTQI+ community—especially kids who will be impacted by this hateful bill—to know that you are loved and accepted just as you are.”

The “hateful bill” is a Florida bill that says schools “may not encourage discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in primary grade levels or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students.”

In other words, Biden wants little kids to learn from adults that they can change their sex: boys should learn that they can become girls, and vice versa. Eventually, this will mean using puberty blockers and undergoing genital mutilation, something which our “devout Catholic” president finds to be perfectly acceptable. It will also mean that biological boys can use the same restrooms as the girls. He is okay with that, too.

So if he is happy with this madness, isn’t this proof that he is in charge? No. He would never write about LGBTQI+ people. Someone else did that.

To be specific, does anyone really believe that Biden knows what the “I” stands for, or what the “+” means?

That seals it—he is being exploited by left-wing zealots in the White House, and everyone, including his wife, knows it. Everyone but Joe, that is.

Contact White House secretary Jen Psaki: jennifer.r.psaki@who.eop.gov

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on “Sex Week”:

Most couples will celebrate Valentine’s Day with a dinner or some other engagement. On many colleges campuses, however, students will be learning the joy of beating each other up.

Valentine’s Day begins “Sex Week.” Students will be treated to an array of panel discussion groups, speakers, and assorted activities, the kind of fare that would bring cheers from the likes of Harvey Weinstein, Jeffrey Toobin, Bill Cosby and the Cuomo brothers.

The idea of “Sex Week” started, appropriately, with the Ivy League. Yale was the first to start this event in 2002, and it has been such a success that it has been adopted nationwide. It started with a rather banal litany of programs, focusing on sex safety and health. Now it features kink.

Princeton University got a jump on things when it held a “latex art contest” on January 31. Students were asked to make art out of “expired latex condoms.” That appears to be a smarter choice than using them.

According to the sexperts at the National Coalition for Sexual Health, checking the expiration date on condoms is critical. Users need to check for holes or tears, as well. “Once you open the condom, if it feels dry, has a foul odor or you see any holes,” advises Dr. Nerys Banfield, “you should throw it away and get a new one.” If you strike out, she says, there is always “mutual masturbation.”

By the way, it costs over $74,000 a year to go to Princeton.

If there is one school that holds the most celebrated “Sex Weeks” events, it is Ohio State University. It starts on Sunday, on the eve of Valentine’s Day. Students will learn that abstinence-only sex education has “a detrimental effect on youth.”

Does that mean that promiscuity is the answer? That’s too tame for these folks. On Valentine’s Day, Ohio State will feature a clinic on bondage, domination, sadism and masochism. They did not say whether this is a “bring your own whip” event.

“Trans affirming surgery” is the topic of discussion for February 15. The next day students will learn how to perfect their masturbatory skills. If that is too pedestrian, students can attend a session titled, “Explore the dangerous, yet fun side of sex called ‘Kink.'”

To show how progressive they are at Ohio State, on two days next week—Wednesday and Friday—they will hold an event, “Valentine’s for Abortion Providers.” This will give administrators, faculty and students an opportunity to thank doctors who kill unborn children for a living for their yeoman service.

It appears that those who are orchestrating these bloody events at Ohio State are not connecting the dots.

Last month, there were seven instances of rape or sexual assault reported on campus (no one knows how many went unreported). Five of these incidents took place in January; the other two occurred last year. Whether whips or chains were used they did not say.

A reporter from Newsweek wrote, “This brings the total number of reported sexual assaults at OSU to 77 in 2021, according to statistics from university police.”

Looks like the offenders, and some of their victims, would have benefited from one of those dreadful abstinence-only courses. Such is the state of morality these days on our college campuses.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue defends the decision by Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI not to apologize for decisions he made before he was elected pope:

People who apologize for offenses they never committed—such as white people who apologize for being white—are either phonies or psychotic.

That is why it is so refreshing to learn that Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI is not apologizing for offenses he never committed while serving as archbishop of Munich and Freising from 1977 to 1982.

In a letter Benedict released today, he offered his “deepest sympathy” to the victims of clergy sexual abuse, saying he feels “great sorrow for each individual case.” But he did not offer a personal apology, and that is because none was warranted.

In an appendix to his letter, Benedict did, however, provide a much-needed rebuttal to accusations made against him by a Munich law firm; it had been commissioned by the archdiocese to examine accusations of sexual abuse that occurred between 1945 and 2019. He was assisted in this endeavor by some of his supporters.

Benedict takes issue with three outstanding accusations; they form the basis of the charges against him.

The first issue deals with Priest X (Peter Hullermann).

Two weeks ago, in his preliminary response, Benedict admitted that he erred when he claimed in his memorandum, drafted in response to the law firm, that he was not present at a meeting on January 15, 1980 in which this priest was discussed. He offers a lengthy, and pointed, commentary explaining how his collaborators made an honest mistake.

One of them, Dr. Stefan Korta, inadvertently made a transcription error noting that Benedict (then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger) was not present at the meeting. He clearly was. In fact, the minutes show that he spoke at the meeting. But to call this a “lie” is malicious.

More important is what transpired at the meeting. The records show that the discussion did not revolve around sexual misconduct committed by the young priest. It focused on a request for therapy, which was granted. That is the sum of it. It is therefore scurrilous to charge that Benedict lied about the meeting.

The second issue is based on charges that Benedict did not act properly in handling the other three cases. The charges are false. Not only does Benedict dispute accusations that he knew of sexual abuse committed by these priests, the law firm report “provides no evidence to the contrary.”

Benedict is unequivocal in his response. “The expert report contains no evidence for an allegation of misconduct or conspiracy in any cover up.” Indeed, if the law firm had proof, it would have provided it. It does not.

The third issue claims that Benedict minimized acts of exhibitionism. In fact, this is patently false. In his memoir, Benedict notes that abuse, including exhibitionism, are “terrible,” “sinful,” “morally reprehensible” and “irreparable.” In other words, he clearly condemned such behavior.

I need to clarify something. In my news release of January 25 on this subject, I accepted the accusation that Benedict downplayed exhibitionism, saying, “he did not treat him [the priest in question] the way he should have. He should have seen this as a red flag—normal men don’t act that way.”

I was wrong to accept this accusation at face value—Benedict never sought to make light of exhibitionism. I apologize for doing so.

There are fair-minded critics of Benedict, but there are also many who are ruthless. They have hated him ever since he headed the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faithful, enforcing the Church’s moral strictures.

Consider the reaction to a homily he gave on April 18, 2005. In an address before the College of Cardinals, who had assembled to elect a new pope, he spoke forcefully about the “dictatorship of relativism” that had engulfed the West.

Georgetown professor E.J. Dionne condemned Cardinal Ratzinger for using “fighting words.” Fr. Richard McBrien from Notre Dame said, “I think this homily shows he realizes he’s not going to be elected.” New York Times reporter Peter Steinfels announced, “Oh well, that gets rid of him.”

The next day he was elected pope.

As I said in my new book, The Truth About Clergy Sexual Abuse, “No one has understood why the clergy sexual abuse scandal took place better than Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI.” That is largely because he correctly noted the effect of the sexual revolution on the Church, and the huge role played by homosexual priests.

I also said that he “does not get the credit he deserves for the actions he took. Quite frankly, no pope in the modern era worked to punish predator priests more than Benedict.” For example, when he was a cardinal, he pressed for a “more rapid and simplified penal process” in dealing with abusive priests.

More important, he defrocked a record number of molesting priests. Indeed, he not only removed the unrepentant serial predator, Fr. Maciel, from ministry, he did not hesitate to accept the resignation of former cardinal Theodore McCarrick when he turned seventy-five, the earliest possible date for him to do so.

Pope Benedict has nothing to apologize for. If anything, it is his vicious critics who owe him an apology.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the latest CDC report on COVID:

The February 4 edition of the CDC’s “Morbidity and Mortality Report”  found that “lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons are at increased risk for severe COVID-19 illnesses because of a higher prevalence of comorbidities.” This accounts for their higher hospitalization rate and mortality rate.

It also found that those who were diagnosed with HIV in New York State had lower COVID-19 vaccination rates than the New York adult population.

Why would LGBT people, who are at risk of contracting COVID, be less likely to get vaccinated than the rest of us? And what does the CDC say we should do about this problem?

The CDC says that “these persons historically experience challenges accessing, trusting, and receiving health care services.”

Nowhere do the multiple authors of this study suggest that it is the behavioral choices made by those who engage in risky sexual activities that accounts not only for their HIV status, but for the prevalence of their comorbidities.

Just as contentious is the recommendation that we need to develop a “better-informed public health strategy to achieve health equity for the LGBT population.”

Does the CDC really believe that the problem is lack of information?

Nowhere do the authors suggest that it is the irresponsible behavior that marks a disproportionate segment of the LGBT community that accounts for the health disparity.

The CDC has not hesitated to recommend draconian lockdowns to combat COVID, and it certainly hasn’t hesitated to recommend restrictions on houses of worship. Why, then, does it not exercise the same aggressive policy recommendations when it comes to LGBT people?

Once again, the CDC is showing that politics counts more than science in driving its conclusions. It also shows that the ruling class has a problem treating sexual minorities as equals, the same way it has a problem treating racial minorities as equals.

Catholic League Forum is a weekly Q&A discussion between Catholic League president Bill Donohue and director of communications Mike McDonald on contemporary issues of interest to the Catholic community. This week, Bill and Mike discuss two important religious liberty cases in Oregon and Washington. They also discuss Amnesty International’s new report attacking Israel and President Biden’s remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast. To watch click here.