Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the bishops’ opposition to the “Covid Relief Bill”:

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has formally opposed the American Rescue Plan Act, more commonly known as the “Stimulus Bill” or the “Covid Relief Bill.”

Thanks to CNSNews, we learned that USCCB president José Gomez wrote a letter on March 6 to all U.S. Senators urging them to vote against the bill; several USCCB committee chairmen co-signed the letter.

This came the day after the USCCB released a letter by Gomez (and the committee chairmen) stating they could not support the bill unless it prohibited funding for abortions. The sponsors of the bill refused to accede to the bishops’ request.

The bishops were unequivocal in their opposition to the bill. “This grievous result gives us heavy hearts because it leaves us with no choice but to urge you to oppose final passage of the American Rescue Plan Act.”

The big story here is the decision of the bishops to make good on their promise that abortion is their “preeminent issue.” For those Catholics who prioritize social justice issues, this is a stunning loss. After all, this was their dream bill, packed with money for all their favorite programs.

There are many elements of the bill that are very appealing to the bishops, and to Catholics in general. But to ask Catholics to support legislation that helps the needy while denying the unborn the right to life is offensive. The most basic human right is the right to life, not income assistance.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the trials and tribulations of Gov. Andrew Cuomo:

Gov. Cuomo is finished, and everyone knows it. The investigative reports on the nursing home scandal, along with a probe of accusations of sexual harassment, will detail his deadly decisions and his sexual misconduct. If he were prudent, he would resign. But his unremitting arrogance will not allow him to do so.

Regarding the latter charges, it is now clear that Cuomo’s campaign for a new law on sexual harassment in the workplace backfired. Indeed, he cooked his own goose.

Cuomo started 2019 bragging how New York will enact legislation on sexual harassment that will be the strongest in the nation. In mid-February, when the first public hearings were held, he said, “I am very proud that New York is the most aggressive state in the country on women’s rights. Anything I can do on sexual harassment we will do.”

One month later, after championing what he said was the gold standard on sexual harassment legislation, Cuomo was asked by Karen DeWitt, a reporter for NPR, about a recent high-ranking official in his administration who had to resign amid a sexual harassment probe. That set Cuomo off.

According to one news story, “Cuomo got extremely testy.” Another report said he “scolded” DeWitt. Her crime? She asked what he was going to do different about this problem in his state government. “When you say it’s state government,” the governor said, “you do a disservice to women, with all due respect, even though you are a woman. It’s not government; it’s society.”

In June, state lawmakers passed the new law. Cuomo was delighted that the bar was set very low. “We will make it easier for claims to be brought forward and send a strong message that when it comes to sexual harassment in the workplace, time is up.” The New York Times weighed in, saying, “The legislation eliminates the state’s ‘severe or pervasive’ standard for proving harassment, which advocates said had allowed judges to dismiss claims of inappropriate comments or even groping as insufficiently hostile.”

Cuomo signed the legislation in August. When it went into effect in October, he said something that came back to haunt him. “The ongoing culture of sexual harassment in the workplace is unacceptable and has held employees back for far too long. This critical measure finally ends the absurd legal standard for victims to prove sexual harassment in the workplace and makes it easier for those who have been subjected to this disgusting behavior to bring claims forward.”

As it turns out, five women have accused Cuomo of sexual harassment, and one of them, Lindsey Boylan, specifically accused him of creating “a culture within his own administration where sexual harassment and bullying is so pervasive that it is not only condoned but expected.” Isn’t that what Cuomo explicitly said was “unacceptable”?

Cuomo said at a press conference on March 3rd, “I never touched anyone inappropriately. I never touched anyone inappropriately.”

This is contradicted by four of his accusers. Boylan says Cuomo kissed her on the lips without her consent and touched her lower back, arms and legs. Anna Ruch (unlike the others she did not work for Cuomo) said he put his hands on her lower back and cheeks and asked to kiss her. Karen Hinton said that after he embraced her, she tried to pull away, but he pulled her back. Ana Liss says he touched her lower back and kissed her hand, calling her “sweetheart.”

Only Charlotte Bennett has not accused Cuomo of “inappropriate touching.” However, she said he asked her about her sex life, and whether she ever slept with older men, making her feel uncomfortable. “I thought he was trying to sleep with me,” Bennett told Norah O’Donnell in a CBS interview. As the New York Times noted about Cuomo’s new law, offenses include “inappropriate comments.”

Now it can be argued that some of these offenses are more infractions than they are serious cases of sexual misconduct. However, when he was giving the green light to lawyers wanting to pursue old cases of alleged clergy sexual abuse, Cuomo knew that many of the accusations involved “inappropriate touching.” So why should we give him a break now?

No one is saying Cuomo is guilty of doing what President Bill Clinton did with Monica Lewinsky. But according to his own relaxed standard of what constitutes sexual harassment in the workplace, he is guilty as sin.

Contact: Press.Office@exec.ny.gov

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on “pro-women” politicians with sordid records of sexual allegations:

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo is accused by three young women of sexual misconduct. He is also a rabid supporter of abortion-on-demand, including partial-birth abortions.

At the end of his press conference on March 3rd, after defending himself against these charges, he touted his “pro-women” record. “We have more senior women in this administration than probably any administration in history.” His top aide, Melissa DeRosa, agreed, saying, he is a big proponent of “reproductive health.”

Cuomo is not alone among Democrats who have been accused of sexual misconduct, yet brag how “pro-women” they are. Here is a sample.

Joe Biden – President

• Accused of sexually assaulting a staff assistant in 1993
• “The Biden-Harris Administration is committed to codifying Roe v. Wade and appointing judges that respect foundational precedents like Roe.”

Bill Clinton – President

• Accused of sexual assault and misconduct by four women: One woman accused Mr. Clinton of raping her in 1978; another accused him of sexually assaulting her in 1980; a third woman accused Clinton of exposing himself to her in 1991 and sexually harassing her; and a fourth accused Clinton of groping her without her consent in 1993.
• “The Government simply has no right to interfere with decisions that must be made by women of America to make the right choice.”

Eric Schneiderman – Former Attorney General of New York

• Accused of sexually and physically abusing four women and forced to resign from office
• “No state law can restrict a woman’s constitutional right to make her own reproductive health choices. This opinion makes crystal clear that all women have a constitutional right to an abortion, irrespective of inconsistent state law.”

Anthony Weiner – Former Congressman (D-NY)

• Accused of sending sexually suggestive images to several women over his career and forced to resign from office
• In response to the Supreme Court ruling on partial birth abortions, Weiner asked for “a hearing so that we can move to overturn the underlying ban on a certain type of late-term abortion.” He called the ruling “an affront to women across the country.”

Al Franken – Former Senator (D-MN)

• Accused of groping or forcibly kissing more than 10 women and forced to resign from office
• In a speech to NARAL, Franken said, “a woman’s right to choose is never fully won. It must be won anew every day, every year, every Congress, and every generation.”

John Conyers – Former Congressman (D-MI)

• Accused of sexually harassing staffers and firing those women who complained and forced to resign from office
• Conyers voted against a ban on partial birth abortions and for federal funding of abortions

Eliot Spitzer – Former Governor of New York

• Accused of soliciting sex from an escort service and forced to resign from office
• “I want to make it clear from the start that if the new Supreme Court turns its back on women’s privacy and limits or overturns Roe vs. Wade, I will do everything in my power to preserve that right here in New York.”

Bobby Scott – Congressman (D-VA)

• Accused of sexual misconduct by a former staffer who claims he dismissed her after she refused his advances
• In a 2020 letter to Nancy Pelosi, Scott joined other legislators in saying, “As proud members of the first pro-choice majority in the House of Representatives, we unequivocally oppose efforts to roll back access to reproductive health services, including abortion….”

These men all have a clear conscience. They are convinced they are champions of women’s rights, thus making moot their sexual misconduct. As long as they have a pro-abortion record, they can treat women any way they want. The sad thing is how many voters, including women, agree with this assessment.

Bill In The News (LifeNews):

Catholic League president Bill Donohue has previously criticized Biden’s nominee for OMB Neera Tanden’s abortion advocacy, and she has now withdrawn her nomination. READ MORE HERE

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on Biden’s Catholic standing:

Everyone knew that Sen. Joe Lieberman was proudly Jewish, so there was no need to persuade the public of his religious status. Similarly, it is widely recognized that Sen. Mitt Romney is a practicing Mormon, therefore making moot attempts to prove he is. President Biden is different. Not a day goes by without some commentators, usually left-wing Catholics, trying to convince the public that he is a model Catholic.

This is disingenuous. If Biden were a model Catholic, there would be no need to assure us that he is. Even his fans know he isn’t, otherwise they wouldn’t waste so much energy on this issue. What galvanizes them is their war with the bishops.

Los Angeles Archbishop José Gomez is president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). When Biden was elected, he congratulated him. However, when Biden was inaugurated, Gomez expressed concerns about the president’s positions on various issues, explicitly wondering whether he “will advance moral evils.”

Most bishops agreed with Gomez, but a few did not. Among the laity, those on the left were furious. Immediately, a campaign against the USCCB was launched by the National Catholic Reporter, a rogue Catholic publication.

On January 28, the Reporter asked the Vatican to investigate the USCCB for its alleged “staunch Republican support.” On February 5, Faithful America, a George Soros creation, started a petition online in support of the Reporter’s efforts. It will have no effect—the Vatican won’t even acknowledge their game—but their intent matters greatly.

What’s driving the campaign against the bishops?

Those on the Catholic left have an ideological interest in selling Biden to the public as a loyal son of the Church. Their goal is to undermine the authority of the bishops by promoting the false idea that the bishops do not have the last word on what constitutes a Catholic in good standing. They seek to persuade the public, especially Catholics, that it is perfectly acceptable to reject the Church’s teachings on life, marriage, and religious liberty—the way Biden does—and still be a model Catholic.

One of their favorite tactics is to contend that Biden is more similar to Pope Francis than are the bishops. David Gibson, who directs an institute at Fordham University, claims that Biden is “more in line with the pope than the American bishops.” That would surely come as news to priests who have denied Biden Communion.

Paul Elie, a Georgetown professor, says the pope and Biden have much in common. “Their informality, the fact that they were elected late in life, the fact that they seem to take issues as they come, listening, discerning and then acting.” He fails to note that the pope and Biden have nothing in common when it comes to their fidelity to the Church’s moral teachings. But that evidently matters less than their “informality.”

Elie is more accurate when he gets to the heart of why it is necessary for Catholics like him to rescue Biden from his critics. “The hope is that the Biden Administration will invigorate American Catholicism, and vice versa.” Translated this means that Catholic dissidents want the Biden brand of Catholicism to prove triumphant.

It angers Catholic malcontents that some criticize Biden’s Catholic credentials. Julia Maloney, who works at the University of Michigan, gets incensed when she hears someone say that Biden is “Catholic in name only.” Mark Silk, who is not Catholic, wants us Catholics to know that the president’s pro-abortion record “doesn’t necessarily make Biden a bad Catholic.”

Sister Simone Campbell, the Democrats’ favorite nun, is bolder than Silk. The star of “nuns on the bus” tries to bail out Biden by saying his views on abortion are “very developed.” By that she means “he will not force his religious beliefs on the whole nation.” Not exactly reassuring considering his desire to force his anti-Catholic beliefs on the Little Sisters of the Poor (as well as everyone else).

Joe Sweeney of the University of California at Davis says it is “incredibly offensive and absurd” to call into question Biden’s Catholicity simply because he has a “moderate approach to issues like abortion and same-sex marriage.” One wonders what positions Biden must take for Sweeney to label him an extremist. After all, Biden supports infanticide—babies killed in partial-birth abortions are 80% born—and he has officiated at gay weddings.

Jamie Manson, who heads an anti-Catholic organization, Catholics for Choice, says the majority of American Catholics agree with Biden on abortion. They do not. Practicing Catholics, as a recent survey disclosed, are pro-life by a 2-1 margin, and even non-practicing Catholics do not support late-term abortions.

The Catholic left has an uphill battle. Most people know that someone who identifies as Catholic yet rejects the Church’s teachings on abortion, gay marriage and the First Amendment cannot realistically be regarded as a loyal Catholic. The fact that these dissidents are working overtime to convince us that Biden is a Catholic in good standing is proof that he isn’t.

Bill In The News (Breitbart):

Catholic League president Bill Donohue underscores “the Left’s ‘obsession’ with Joe Biden’s Catholicism… asserting he ‘doesn’t connect the dots between his faith and his public policy decisions.'” READ MORE HERE

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the intense focus on President Biden’s religion:

The obsession with President Biden’s religion is everywhere apparent, especially among Democrats, liberal pundits, reporters and activists. They are working overtime to convince the public that he is a good Catholic.

On Biden’s first day in office, White House press secretary Jen Psaki addressed his religion at a press conference. “I will just take the opportunity to remind all of you that he is a devout Catholic, and somebody who attends church regularly.” “Devout Catholic.” A lexis-nexis search reveals that this descriptive term has been used by the press hundreds of times in the last three months.

The day after Biden was inaugurated, the New York Times gushed that he is “perhaps the most religiously observant commander in chief in half a century.” Usually, this newspaper is apprehensive, if not alarmed, about “religiously observant” public officials (especially Catholic ones), yet for some reason they made an exception for Biden.

Sister Carol Keehan is the former head of the Catholic Health Association. She says Biden is a “man who clearly loves his faith.” To get an idea of what she considers to be a model Catholic, she recently showered Xavier Becerra with praise when he was being grilled by a Senate committee over his nomination to be Secretary of Health and Human Services. It does not bother her one iota that Becerra supports partial-birth abortions and is known for his never-ending crusades against the Little Sisters of the Poor.

Another Biden admirer is John Carr, co-director of a Catholic project at Georgetown University; he is a reliable liberal Catholic voice. He is impressed by the difference between Biden and his predecessor. “We’re going from one of the least overtly religious presidents in modern times to one of the most overtly religious presidents in recent times.”

If there is one thing that makes Biden “overtly religious,” it is his habit of carrying a rosary. That puts a smile on the face of liberal Catholics like Father Tom Reese, a prominent Jesuit writer. “This is a guy who carries a rosary around in his pocket and talks about his faith.” The media also love this story. This explains why there is so much chatter about Biden’s rosary beads.

Let’s concede that Biden is a rosary-carrying “devout Catholic.” What does that have to do with his public policy decisions that are of interest to the Catholic Church?

Biden’s lust for abortion rights, and his steadfast opposition to religious liberty legislation—as exemplified in his defense of the Equality Act—are uncontestable. In other words, if a “devout” Catholic doesn’t connect the dots between his faith and his public policy decisions, how excited should Catholics be about him? And does this not explain why secularists adore this kind of Catholic?

At the individual level, Biden is the embodiment of what the privatization of religion means. In this view, religion is solely an interior exercise, having no public role to play. It must be said that there is nothing Catholic about such a position. Indeed, every pope in recent times, including Pope Francis, has spoken against this insular view. Catholicism, they contend, must have a robust presence in the public square.

Biden’s privatized conception of religion is not a stunt—it is who he is. The first time he publicly mentioned his rosary beads was in 1995, twenty-two years after he became U.S. Senator from Delaware. What he said at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on religious freedom was classic Biden.

“I am one of those guys who’s never talked about my religion. I carry a thing called a rosary bead with me all the time—I say it all the time, I say it on the train—to me, it’s a comforting thing. I don’t suggest it to anybody else.”

He did not explain why, if the rosary beads meant so much to him, he did not want to “suggest it to anybody else.” Perhaps in his mind such a suggestion could be read as an imposition. But that wouldn’t explain his support for forcing nuns to pay for abortion-inducing drugs in their healthcare plans. That was not a suggestion—it was a mandate. It was also one that violated Catholic moral teachings.

It seems a little strange for a “devout Catholic” to keep private his religion. After all, Biden is not a monk—he has been a public office holder for 47 years. This accounts, however, for the fact that when he was running for president, the majority of the public had no idea he was Catholic. In September 2020, Newsweek released a poll showing that 56% were unaware that Biden was Catholic.

Biden’s long-time secretive Catholic status is a secret no more. Indeed his fans are now touting his “devout Catholic” status whenever they can. Given the president’s strong opposition to the life issues and religious liberty, they have little choice. It is precisely this kind of Catholic that the New York Times loves.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the Catholic Church’s response to slavery:

As Black History Month comes to a close, the subject of slavery has been discussed in many forums. In some cases, treatment of the Catholic Church’s role has been misrepresented.

Slavery is one of the most ubiquitous and historically accepted institutions in history. There is not a place on the globe where slavery did not exist, and protests against it have been extremely rare. The Hebrews, Greeks and Romans saw nothing wrong with it, and neither did the Africans, Chinese and Japanese. Aristotle thought slavery was a normal way of life.

It is important to recognize that, notwithstanding the American experience, slavery has almost never had anything to do with race: people of the same race, ethnicity, tribe, or clan enslaved each other. Moreover, it was not uncommon for former slaves to enslave others. That slavery still exists today in parts of Africa (which did not make it illegal until the 1980s) is proof of its tenacious legacy.

If slavery was considered normal throughout most of history, when, and for what reasons, was it finally seen as objectionable? We can credit Western civilization with that honor: It was the first civilization to condemn slavery. The driving force behind it was Christianity.

The first person in history to condemn slavery publicly was Saint Patrick. A former slave himself, he enunciated the wisdom of natural law without specifically invoking it. All men were created equal in the eyes of God, he said, and should therefore be treated as equals in law. It was this quintessentially Catholic concept—all humans possess equal dignity— that eventually proved to be triumphant.

In antiquity, slavery was so common that Pope Pius I in the second century and Pope Callistus I in the third century were slaves. It wasn’t until the fourth century that a bishop rejected slavery, and that was Gregory of Nyssa.

In practice, the Church’s opposition to slavery began with its objections to the inhumane treatment of slaves; only later did it condemn the institution itself. But by protesting maltreatment, it did more to lay the groundwork for the eventual demise of slavery than any other institution, secular or religious.

Given the Church’s role in opposing slavery it was troubling to read a recent Washington Post article posted online by Shannen Dee Williams, a professor of history at Villanova University. Apparently unaware of Saint Patrick and Gregory of Nyssa (who later became a saint), she claims the Church played “the leading role” in the history of slavery. She even goes so far as to say that the Catholic Church was “the first global institution to declare that Black lives did not matter.”

This is not simply an example of shoddy scholarship—it is a vicious lie. To make her case, she cites papal bulls by Pope Nicholas V in 1452 and Pope Alexander VI in 1493 as evidence that “the Catholic Church authorized the perpetual enslavement of Africans and the seizure of ‘non-Christian lands.'” This account is seriously flawed.

Nicholas V’s “Dum Diversas” was a response to those who sought “to extinguish [the] Christian religion.” The pope argued that the King of Portugal had a right to protect his people and to hold in “perpetual servitude” the Saracens (Muslims) and pagans who threatened Christianity. The pope did not make a sweeping statement about enslaving Africans, as Williams contends.

Pope Alexander VI’s “Inter Caetera” awarded colonial rights over newly discovered lands to Spain and Portugal. Nowhere in his papal bull does the pope even mention slaves or slavery. For Williams to imply otherwise is scurrilous.

Had Williams dug a little deeper she would have cited Pope Paul III’s decision to forbade slavery in the New World under penalty of excommunication. This was in 1537, at a time when no other leader, secular or religious, was denouncing slavery. In 1839, Pope Gregory XVI also condemned slavery, but it was Pope Leo XIII in 1888 who took the most authoritative steps to abolish this institution.

It was the Catholic Church’s teaching on natural law—all humans possess equal dignity and equal rights—that proved to be determinative in the end. Aristotle may be the father of natural law but he thought it was normal for slaves to obey their masters. The Church disagreed. It invoked natural rights—our equal rights come from God, not government—thus making the case to undermine slavery.

An honest historical account of the role played by the Catholic Church in ending slavery is not being taught in the schools, at any level. This has less to do with scholarship than it does politics.

To cite one example, how many college students are aware that the first prominent sociologist in American history, George Fitzhugh, was known as a progressive and a strong defender of slavery? In the 1850s, he maintained that because blacks were intellectually and morally inferior to white people, they could never successfully compete with whites in a capitalist society and were therefore better off as slaves. This is what happens when natural law and natural rights are jettisoned.

It is time for those in education, and for the publishers of elementary and secondary textbooks in history and the social sciences, to render an accurate depiction of the Catholic Church’s role in ending slavery.

Bill In The News (One America News):

Catholic League president Bill Donohue warns “virtually every religious institution ‘would be expected to fall in line with this radical legislation.'” READ MORE HERE

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on accusations of sexual harassment against New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo:

Gov. Andrew Cuomo needs to step aside immediately pending an investigation into allegations of sexual harassment in the workplace. In doing so, he would simply be taking the same medicine he has prescribed for the Catholic Church.

If a priest is accused of sexual misconduct, the Church’s zero tolerance policy insists he must step aside pending an investigation. Initially, this policy was directed at offenses committed against minors. However, in 2017 and 2019, Pope Francis said that zero tolerance must also be applied to sexual offenses committed against “vulnerable adults,” defined, in part, as those in a state that “limits their ability” to “want or otherwise resist the offense.”

According to allegations made by Lindsey Boylan, she would qualify as a “vulnerable adult.” The former high-ranking official in the Cuomo administration has accused the governor of a series of sexual offenses, ranging from unwanted sexual touching to kissing her against her will. She has also accused him of intimidation, thus underscoring her vulnerability. “He used intimidation to silence his critics. And if you dared to speak up, you would face consequences.”

Boylan claims that other women have also been sexually harassed by Cuomo. We know that Karen Hinton, for instance, a former Cuomo aide, has accused him of “penis politics.” This would seem to bolster Boylan’s point that Cuomo “created a culture within his administration where sexual harassment and bullying is so pervasive that it is not only condoned but expected.”

What makes Boylan’s accusations so rich is that in 2018 Cuomo said, “There must be zero tolerance for sexual harassment in any workplace, and we can and will end the secrecy and coercive practices that have enabled harassment for far too long.”

In 2019, he signed legislation to combat this problem. “There has been an ongoing, persistent culture of sexual harassment, assault and discrimination in the workplace, and now it is time to act.” He even lowered the bar as to what constitutes sexual harassment.

“By ending the absurd legal standard that sexual harassment in the workplace needs to be ‘severe or pervasive’ and making it easier for workplace sexual harassment claims to be brought forward,” he said, “we are sending a strong message that time is up on sexual harassment in the workplace and setting the standard of equality for women.”

In light of what Boylan said he did to her, her allegations meet this test.

Cuomo denies the charges and should be treated as an innocent man. It must be said, however, that he has a history of not affording a presumption of innocence to others accused of sexual offenses.

When Brett Kavanaugh was nominated to be a Supreme Court Justice, the judge was accused by Christine Blasey Ford of a sexual offense that he allegedly committed when he was in high school. He denied the charge. But that didn’t stop Cuomo from calling her a “sexual survivor,” even though not a single witness came to her defense. “To Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and all survivors of sexual assault,” Cuomo said, “we believe you and we will fight for you.”

We can only imagine how Cuomo would react if I said, “To Lindsey Boylan and all survivors of sexual assault, we believe you and we will fight for you.”

For many years, Cuomo has treated accused priests the same way. When has he ever stood up for their due process rights? Two years ago, after making sweeping accusations against the Catholic Church, he closed his remarks by saying, “You can’t get a resolution without the truth and there are so many people and so many institutions that just don’t want to hear the truth.”

Well, Gov. Cuomo, it’s time for you to take another dose of your own medicine. The public wants to know the truth about the charges levied against you. You can facilitate this process by taking a leaf out of the Catholic Church’s playbook and step aside pending a probe of your alleged sexual offenses.

Contact Cuomo’s press office: Press.Office@exec.ny.gov