When Sen. Dianne Feinstein made a patently anti-Catholic comment in 2017, saying to circuit-court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, “the dogma lives loudly within you,” Bill Donohue wrote to the senator expressing his concerns. More important, he mobilized thousands of Catholics to email Sen. Charles Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, about Feinstein’s bigoted remark. Now Feinstein is back in the news with a hot-mic quip about Barrett’s Catholicism.

Speaking about Barrett, Feinstein was caught saying, “She’s been pro-life for a long time. So, I suspect with her, it is deeply personal and comes with her religion.”

Feinstein was recently rapped for making another anti-Catholic remark. She should not have been. What she said was not anti-Catholic. But Donohue hastened to add that coming from someone who previously made an anti-Catholic comment about Barrett, Feinstein’s second Catholic moment told us a lot about who she is.

Feinstein was correct to say Barrett is “pro-life,” which is an accurate way to characterize what is usually understood by those on the other side as “anti-choice.” And, yes, for practicing Catholics, such a conviction—which is also confirmed by science—being pro-life is “deeply personal.” But given what Feinstein previously said about Barrett’s Catholicity, it appears that she was positively awestruck by her sincerity.

Feinstein is not alone. Secularists abound in the media, the arts, the entertainment industry and education. At best, they look at people like Barrett in wonderment, almost as if they are from some other universe; at worst, they hate them. Feinstein falls into the former category.

It is somewhat surprising for Feinstein to be puzzled by a Catholic’s deeply personal faith. After all, she graduated from Convent of the Sacred Heart High School. However, she also attended a Jewish temple—her father was Jewish—and spent time in a Jewish day school. So perhaps she never found anchor in either religion; she is not known to be a practicing member of any faith.

Elites in all walks of life are acutely sensitive to stereotypes, expressing horror whenever generalizations are made about people of color, et al. Moreover, they are constantly urging us to meet people who are different from us so we can understand their point of view. The one exception to this maxim is people of faith, especially Christians. For us, they just stare. That’s if we’re lucky. Others seek to silence us.

Feinstein congratulated Barrett during the hearings for her “impressive” command of the facts. That was kind of her. Now if she could only sit down and spend some time really listening to people like Barrett—getting to know them the way she knows dogmatic secularists—that would make her a better person. Not only that, we would all benefit from that outcome.

Judge Amy Coney Barrett has won over the American people and, as we recently saw, a majority of the senate. Women are particularly admiring of her, and Catholic women see her as a role model. About the only ones unhappy with her are left-wing atheists, and a few others. The few others includes the editorial staff of the National Catholic Reporter. It came out formally against Barrett, asking the senate to reject her. Fortunately, no one on the senate knows who they are.

The Reporter is a pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-women’s ordination newspaper that is partly responsible for the clergy sexual abuse scandal. It is mostly read by ex-Catholic faculty who condemn the Church’s teachings on marriage, the family, and sexuality. Lots of ex-priests and ex-nuns like it as well. It makes them feel validated.

Why doesn’t the Reporter like Barrett? She should “have phoned the White House and asked not to be considered for the nomination.” This is the kind of comment we might expect from a child. Why should she have done what no other nominee to any federal post would ever conceive of doing? Because the senate hearings were too close to the election.

The Reporter needs to hire some non-sexist men and women. Either that or fold. Only sexists would express their anger at Barrett’s “adoring look” at the president. Worse, they said it was feigned: they wrote that Barrett gave President Trump “the required adoring look.” The sexists would never make such a remark about a male nominee to the high court.

Everyone with an IQ in double digits knows that climate change is a contentious issue. Everyone but the sages at the Reporter. For them, there is nothing to debate—it’s a slam dunk. Indeed, no debate should be allowed. That’s another reason they hate Barrett, who acknowledged it is a controversial matter. Her independence of mind is not something the dissidents can appreciate.

Finally, the “Catholic” newspaper is livid over the prospect of having six Catholics on the high court (that’s if we count Catholic dissident Sonia Sotomayor). Imagine a Jewish newspaper saying there are too many Jews on the high court (we had three up until Ginsburg died)? No, only alienated Catholics would make such an argument.

Judge Barrett is a stunningly courageous and erudite woman who makes Catholics proud. And that is one more reason why the National Catholic Reporter does not want her on the bench. Too late for that—we won.

On November 4, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in one of the most important religious liberty cases in recent years. At stake is the right of religious social service agencies to follow their own religious prerogatives, rather than yield to the secular values of the state. Catholic foster care programs seek to place children in Catholic homes where there is a mother and a father. This was regarded as wholly unexceptional, up until recently. But in the age of an aggressive gay rights lobby, this time-honored tradition is now before the Supreme Court. It will issue its ruling next spring.

The case before the high court, Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, involves the City of Philadelphia’s decision to stop referring children in need of foster care to Catholic Social Services (CSS). Miami Archbishop Thomas Wenski, who is also the chairman of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee for Religious Liberty, noted on November 2 that “The Church pioneered foster care in Philadelphia 150 years before the government got involved.” But because CSS, following Church teachings, will not place children with homosexual couples, the government is seeking to force it to get into line with its amoral values.

It is important to recognize that no one has ever charged that CSS discriminates against anyone. No homosexual couple has ever sought to secure foster children from CSS. This is an entirely contrived case, designed to strip CSS of its religious rights. Before assessing the merits of the Catholic Church’s foster care programs, consider how this case began.

On March 9, 2018, a reporter from the Philadelphia Inquirer called the Philadelphia Human Services department complaining that CSS, and a Protestant-run child care agency, would not work with homosexual couples as foster parents. Four days later the newspaper ran a piece on this story. Cynthia Figueroa, the Commissioner of Human Services, called officials at the Catholic and Christian agencies seeking to verify the paper’s claims. James Amato, Secretary of CSS, confirmed the veracity of the story.

Figueroa and Amato met to discuss this issue. Amato explained that he was only following the teachings of the Catholic Church, and that CSS had been doing this for over 100 years. Figueroa then showed her true colors, which, despite her Jesuit education (some might say because of it) allowed her to argue that the Church had better get with the times. That is where she crossed the line.

Figueroa went further than that. She told Amato that “it would be great if we could follow the teachings of Pope Francis.” According to Amato, she chided him for following the lead of Archbishop Charles Chaput (who recently retired): he defended the CSS policy as sound Catholic thinking.

This alone should sunder the case made by the City of Philadelphia. Here we have an agent of the state telling a Catholic social service agency that it is not being faithful to the Church’s teachings! And because of that, it must be punished by the state.

First of all, nothing that Pope Francis has ever said about homosexuals wanting to adopt children should ever be construed as affirming their desire to do so.

Secondly, what right does a municipal employee have in lecturing a religious institution about its doctrines, telling them that they are wrong in their interpretation of them? Imagine a bishop lecturing a government official on his need to get up to speed with the latest interpretations of constitutional law! It would never happen.

This case involves the future of religious liberty in a wide variety of cases. We live in precarious times, and this is especially true of the content of our culture. The Judeo-Christian tradition that has served us so well badly needs to be strengthened.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue is asking everyone to push one more time for the release of a Thai man who is still in the custody of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE):

Earlier this month, I asked everyone to appeal to the White House requesting that Pornchai Moontri be released from ICE. For those of you who are unfamiliar with his case, read the story below.

We need you to make one more appeal to President Trump before Christmas. Why? Because we have learned that just days after many of you answered our call and appealed to the White House, the Thailand embassy was contacted by ICE saying there is movement in his case. He is in his fourth month of ICE custody.

Click here to access the form for the White House appeal. Suggested remarks: “President Trump: Please expedite the repatriation of Pornchai Moontri (ICE detention A-039064244). He has paid his debt to society and simply wants to return home to his native Thailand.”

Here is why Pornchai deserves to be released.

Pornchai was born in Thailand in 1973 and was abandoned by his mother when he was two-years-old. She intended to sell him, but a young relative came to his rescue and brought him into his home. When he was 11-years-old his mother reemerged with a new husband; they took him to Bangor, Maine, against his will. His stepfather, Richard Bailey, immediately started raping him, and did so for three years. At age 14, Porhchai escaped (it was his second escape) and became homeless. When he was 18, he got into a fight with a much bigger man while he was intoxicated and took the man’s life during the struggle (he was so drunk he does not recall stabbing him).

While awaiting trial, Pornchai’s mother came to visit him in jail, warning him that if he disclosed to the authorities what his stepfather did to him, she would suffer the consequences. Fearing for his mother’s life, he prudently decided not to speak, even to the point of not defending himself in court. He was convicted of murder and sentenced to 45 years in prison. Maine has no parole.

In 2000, his mother attempted to leave her husband; they were living in Guam. That is where she was beaten to death. The only suspect was her husband, but there was no evidence to convict him. Subsequently, many things changed.

In 2005, Pornchai was sent to a New Hampshire State Prison. That is where he met Fr. MacRae. Five years later, Pornchai became a Catholic; he soon became a fan of the Catholic League.

In 2018, after new evidence emerged—advocates for Pornchai pursued Bailey—and justice was finally done. Bailey was convicted on forty felony counts of child sexual abuse against Pornchai.

On September 11, 2020, Pornchai, after serving his full sentence, was released at age 47 to the custody of ICE for deportation to his native Thailand. He is still in custody, with no end in sight.

Pornchai has served his time and has suffered enough. He should now be set free.

Bill Donohue wrote to the Walt Disney Company Board of Directors about the November 8 episode of the Fox TV show, “Family Guy” (Fox entertainment is owned by Disney). This episode featured a scene where two Catholic sacraments, Baptism and Holy Communion, were mocked. It also maligned priests and disparaged rabbis. The offensive scene involved a Christening.

Meg (The Daughter): “Where’s the priest?”

Lois (The Mother): “Oh, the Church ran out of priests months ago because of all the diddling. Now they just have a rabbi fill in.”

The scene then cuts to a rabbi at a baptismal font where he makes this comment while doing the baptism.

Rabbi: “Welcome to the Christening. Now, before the child goes in the water, has it been at least 20 minutes since she ate?”

Joe (Father of Girl being baptized): “Yes, rabbi.”

Rabbi: “Let’s dunk this kid like a doughnut. I hereby Christen this child in the name of Jesus Christ, who was killed by we-don’t-know-who, it’s not important. The last thing we want to do is point fingers.”

After the Baptism, the rabbi makes a joke about the Eucharist.

Rabbi: “Congratulations, sweetie, you’re a Christian. From now on, every Sunday you get to eat a hard cookie and pretend it’s a guy.”

Donohue asked Mr. Robert Iger, the Executive Chairman of the Walt Disney Company, and the other members of its board of directors, to answer several questions.

Donohue asked him to “call off the dogs,” pledging that “If I have to write again, the content of my communication will be strikingly dissimilar.”

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the latest battle for conscience rights:

“I cannot take the life of a child in one room and guide another child into this world in the next.”

Those are the words of Regina Frost, a Christian doctor who earlier this year expressed her disdain for Planned Parenthood and the state of New York when they went to court seeking to force medical professionals to perform abortions. As an OB-GYN, Frost took umbrage at the audacity of these “pro-choice” enthusiasts. It is quite obvious that the pro-abortion industry respects neither the choice of the child to be born nor the choice of people like Dr. Frost not to participate in abortions.

This issue is now back in the news. The Department of Justice filed a civil lawsuit on December 16 against the University of Vermont Medical Center for reportedly forcing medical professionals to perform an abortion against their will. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say this issue should be back in the news: aside from the Associated Press, the only media outlets covering this story are Catholic and conservative ones.

Cardinal Timothy Dolan is the chairman of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (USCCB) Committee for Religious Liberty, and Archbishop Joseph Naumann is chairman of the USCCB’s Committee on Pro-Life Activities. They issued a strong statement commending the Trump Administration for defending conscience rights by “taking corrective action” against the University of Vermont Medical Center.

In 2018, a nurse at this medical center in Burlington, Vermont filed a conscience and religious discrimination complaint with the Office of Civil Rights in Washington, D.C. against the facility. The nurse’s objections to abortion were well known by those who worked there, yet they pulled a fast one on her—she was not told that she had to participate in an abortion until she entered the room.

What this nurse had to endure should never have happened. In 1973, just weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court legalized abortion in its infamous Roe v. Wade decision, Congress enacted the Church Amendment (named after Idaho Senator Frank Church). It prohibited courts and government agencies from forcing healthcare workers from performing an abortion if they morally objected. The vote was 92-1.

In a related case, Doe v. Bolton, decided the same day as Roe, Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun (he wrote the majority opinion in both cases) took up the question of forcing someone to perform an abortion. He said that “a physician or any other employee has the right to refrain, [410 U.S. 179, 198] for moral or religious reasons from participating in the abortion procedure.”

It is a sign of just how sick our society has become that well into the 21st century we are still fighting for the conscience rights of employees who do not want to assist in the killing of another human being. Even sicker is the prospect of a self-professed Catholic president waiting in the wings to undo all the religious liberty achievements of the Trump administration, including the right to abstain from participating in an abortion.

Bill In The News (Breitbart):

Catholic League President Bill Donohue comments on “Mr. Biden’s choice of ‘pro-abortion zealot’ Xavier Becerra as Secretary of Health and Human Services, calling for all-out opposition to the appointment.” READ MORE HERE

Bill In The News (Breitbart):

Catholic League President Bill Donohue highlights the hypocrisy of the media getting “up in arms over the burning of banners of the Marxist Black Lives Matter movement and yet defend the torching of Bibles… the American flag,”  and Catholic icons.  READ MORE HERE 

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on reaction to vandalized Black Lives Matter (BLM) banners:

The media and left-wing activists never expressed anger when Catholic churches and iconic Catholic statues were being vandalized and destroyed by Antifa and Black Lives Matter, but now—all of a sudden—they are up in arms over BLM banners being burned outside black churches in Washington D.C. Their selective outrage is stunning.

On December 15, the Associated Press (AP) ran a big piece on the BLM banners. It claimed that black churches were vandalized. They were not. It was BLM banners displayed outside the churches that were burned: The churches themselves were not damaged in any way. By contrast, to cite one example, last spring BLM supporters spray-painted obscenities on the exterior wall of New York’s St. Patrick’s Cathedral. Yet there was no comparable outcry from those upset about BLM banners being burned.

To its credit, AP proved to be the most fair of any media outlet. It not only covered the BLM banners that were vandalized, it covered the several instances this year when statues of St. Junípero Serra were toppled by left-wing activists. Unfortunately, it was an anomaly among the big media. The New York Times and the Washington Post covered the BLM incident but had no news story on the multiple Serra incidents.

The burning of BLM banners was cited by CBS, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC and PBS. Only CBS mentioned the destruction of statues of St. Serra. Moreover, the attack on this heroic priest extended over several months in many cities; it was not just one weekend of violence.

It is not just the smashing of statues of St. Serra that Catholics have endured this year.

In June, the Catholic Basilica of St. Mary in Minneapolis was set on fire. Catholic churches near the University of Mississippi were vandalized. The Cathedral Basilica of the Immaculate Conception in Denver was trashed. Windows were smashed in Dallas at St. Jude Chapel and at the Cathedral of the Assumption in Louisville. Swastikas and anti-Catholic scribbling was found on the graves of several Dominican friars on the campus of Providence College.

In July, a statue of Our Blessed Mother was set on fire in Boston and another statue of the Virgin Mary was vandalized in Queens. In Ocala, Florida, a man crashed his minivan into a Catholic church while parishioners gathered for Mass; he then poured gasoline in the church’s foyer and set the church ablaze. San Gabriel Mission Church in Los Angeles County was set on fire, destroying parts of the 249-year-old iconic structure. Vandals were charged with a hate crime after they partially disfigured Mission San Jose, a church in Fremont, California.

Also in July, Sacred Heart Catholic school in Gallup, New Mexico was broken into and a statue of Jesus was vandalized. A statue of Jesus was beheaded at Good Shepherd Catholic church in South Florida. “Satanic” and “anarchist” symbols were found on the church door at St. Joseph’s Church in New Haven. In August, Bibles were burned in Portland.

In a sane world, we could all agree that vandalism of any kind is morally wrong. But we don’t live in such a world.

Nikole Hannah-Jones, the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist responsible for the New York Times’ historically flawed “1619 Project,” says, “Destroying property, which can be replaced, is not violence.”

David Remnick of the New Yorker is a big fan of BLM. He quotes, with relish, a co-founder of the racist organization. “We don’t have time to finger-wag at protesters about property. That can be rebuilt.” So could his house if someone torched it.

Two left-wing geniuses, Robin D.G. Kelley, an historian at UCLA, and R.H. Lossin, whose Ph.D. in Communications is from Columbia, both wrote lengthy defenses this past June about the violent Antifa and BLM mobs.

Kelley wrote in the New York Times that because “we are in the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, looting should not surprise anyone.” But the looters stole toasters, not bread. They also helped themselves to pricey sneakers and jewelry, neither of which is edible. No matter, he chided the public for “obsessing over looting.”

Lossin wrote her screed in the pages of the Nation, a Stalinist media outlet. “Property destruction is not synonymous with the violence that is being protested,” she opines. “Plateglass windows don’t bleed.” Neither does her laptop. But it’s a sure bet she would object if a sledgehammer were taken to it. She is also no fan of non-violence. “The notion that nonviolence is tactically more effective…has not only been proven wrong over the past week by sheer numbers; it cannot be historically supported.”

It would be hard to find a single professor of a conservative bent (thanks to the “tolerant-minded” professoriate, there aren’t too many of them) who would belittle property crimes and denounce peaceful protests. Such sages are only found on the Left.

Forgive me if I can’t get too exercised about BLM banners being set on fire. Antifa and BLM burn the American flag, churches, Catholic schools, and cop cars. The media and left-wing activists have no moral ground to stand on when they bash those of us who object to the latter while they go bonkers over the former.

Bill In The News (Breitbart):

Catholic League President Bill Donohue notes “that for the leftist media, the only good Catholic is a bad Catholic.” READ MORE HERE