Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the need to claim AOC as Catholic:

There isn’t much left of the Catholic Left these days. Jealous of the success that EWTN has had for decades—there is no TV station run by Catholic dissidents—and outclassed by Catholic conservative writers and speakers, there is a pressing need for them to find a public person they can anoint as one of their own. They have found such a person in Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC). Or at least they think they have.

The latest attempt to rescue AOC from her inveterate secularism is the National Catholic Reporter. The New York congresswoman is said to credit her Catholic faith for her positions on climate change and healthcare. But is she really a Catholic?

“I consider myself Catholic,” AOC said.

That is not how Catholics speak of themselves. They simply say they are Catholic. Indeed, it is not how most people articulate any of their multiple identities. Imagine someone saying, “I consider myself to be Irish,” or “I consider myself to be an author.” Why the need to hedge? There is nothing subjective about being Catholic, Irish, or an author. You either are or you are not.

Ironically, AOC’s tentativeness is warranted. For example, she did not tell the reporter that she has been a Catholic all her life; rather, she said she “grew up in the Catholic faith” (while noting her mother is not Catholic). More important, to what extent does she take her moral cues from her Catholic background?

Over the summer, the National Catholic Reporter ran an article they knew was false. “AOC is the Future of the Catholic Church.” Fallen away Catholics are a reality, and they may play a role in shaping the culture, but they are certainly not the future of the Catholic Church.

Indeed, the best the author of this propaganda piece could do was to say that after listening to an address AOC gave on the House floor, she was “struck by how often it referenced Catholic values.” The subject of AOC’s speech was the need to respect women. Fine, but there is nothing inherently Catholic about that stance; even non-believers agree. Moreover, it was not AOC who credited her Catholicism for her view—it was the author. This shows how desperate Catholic dissidents are in their search to find someone to carry their banner.

The Catholic Left wants the public to think that AOC’s Catholicism is evident in her social justice positions. But how kind was AOC to the poor when she fought an attempt by Amazon to set up shop in her district? Because of her effort, an estimated 25,000 to 40,000 jobs were lost.

How kind is AOC to the poor by consigning them to failed public schools? She is opposed to all school choice initiatives, except for those that touch her personally: She bragged about getting her Goddaughter into a charter school.

The poor are the ones most affected by crime, and they are not proponents of defunding the police. AOC is. In fact, she wants to abolish the prisons. Just whose neighborhoods does she think the felons will repair to once released?

Children are among the most vulnerable Americans. AOC says we have too many of them. That is why last year she raised the question, “Is it okay to still have children?” This sheds great light on her enthusiasm for abortion rights.

Social justice crusaders are supposed to be judicious in their approach to minorities. Yet AOC is a strong ally of Linda Sarsour, a vicious anti-Semite. More recently, just a few months ago AOC ripped Father Damien, the 19th century priest who gave his life serving lepers on the Hawaiian island of Molokai. She said this heroic priest was guilty of patriarchy and white supremacy.

If AOC is the best the Catholic Left can do in their quest to find a leader, they are in serious trouble. They may “consider” AOC to be a Catholic, but we are equally free to consider their campaign a ploy.

Contact National Catholic Reporter CEO, Tom Fox: tfox@ncronline.org

Bill In The News (Newsmax):

Catholic League President Bill Donohue delves into detail about the polling in the upcoming presidential election. READ MORE HERE

The Catholic League in the News (Catholic Culture):

The Catholic League is cited as a leading voice in the Catholic public policy arena.  READ MORE HERE  

Catholic League president Bill Donohue discusses Halloween costumes that are generally available:

Every year we are treated to Halloween costumes that disparage priests and nuns. As usual, all other major religions are treated with humor, but not with offensive wares.

Amazon is featuring a priest outfit equipped with a pump that makes it look like he is sporting an erection. There is nothing equivalent available for rabbis, imams or ministers. Nor do the other religions have anything that resemble the “Evil Bishop” costume. The pregnant nun dress is currently unavailable.

Walmart has an “Evil Bishop” costume but there is nothing like that for those who want to dress as a rabbi, imam or minister. Party City has an “Adult Blessed Babe Nun Costume” and a few inoffensive priest outfits; there is nothing available for the Jewish, Islamic and Protestant clergy.

Halloween Costumes has by far the biggest selection. There is the priest-with-an-erection one. Those who would like to see a rabbi, imam or minister dressed this way are out of luck—none are available. They are also selling a “Sexy Priest Men’s Costume,” a “Pregnant Nun Costume,” a “Misbeheaven Women’s Nun Costume,” a “Women’s Dreadful Nun Plus Costume,” a “Naughty Nun Costume,” and a “Bad Habit Nun Costume.” Those who like to dress as an “Evil Bishop” will be disappointed—it is all sold out.

We have asked these companies before why they don’t treat Jews, Muslims and Protestants the way they treat Catholics. They always say the same thing: there is no demand for such outfits.

Are they telling us that there is a demand for offensive Catholic ones, and that they are only too happy to oblige? What does that say? And would they feature some blackface costumes if there was a demand for them?

As disturbing as the obnoxious stereotypes that these companies promote is their dishonesty. We’d rather deal with honest bigots than with dishonest ones.

Contact Halloween Costumes media rep, Henni Kristiansen: henni.kristiansen@halloweencostumes.com

The Catholic League in the News (NPR):

The Catholic League is cited as an influential force in public policy circles.  READ MORE HERE  

Bill in the News (WHYY):

Catholic League president Bill Donohue calls for greater clarity in the pope’s recent comments about civil-unions.  READ MORE HERE

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on civil unions for homosexuals:

When it comes to marriage and the family, heterosexuals are entitled to a privileged position in law. Only a man and a woman can reproduce, without which the population ends, making it nonsensical not to codify their special gift in law. But our legal and cultural elites have decided otherwise, pretending human nature does not exist. Hence, the reality of gay marriage.

Pope Francis opposes gay marriage. In fact, he calls it the work of the Devil. But he is open to civil unions for homosexuals. This is, of course, a moot issue in the Western world where two men can legally marry. But in other parts of the world, civil unions for homosexuals seem like an attractive alternative. However, those inclined to accept this proposal should not do so unless civil unions are open to everyone, not simply homosexuals.

San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone has released a statement, “The Role of Civil Unions,” that makes a great deal of sense. Why should access to benefits that civil unions entail, e.g., healthcare and tax breaks, be limited to homosexual couples? Cordileone, who discussed this matter with Pope Francis earlier this year, argues that this initiative is too narrowly drawn. Why, for example, cannot an unmarried brother and sister who live together not be eligible?

This inclusive approach was broached by San Francisco Archbishop William Levada back in the 1990s. The issue at that time, when gay marriage was still illegal, was whether straight or gay couples could qualify for the benefits afforded by domestic partnerships; gays were pushing this issue. In 1990, the proposal won in a referendum.

Then city authorities tried to force any institution that did business with the city to recognize domestic partnerships in their benefit plans. Levada met with Mayor Willie Brown and a compromise was reached: each employee was allowed to name a legally domiciled member of his household to be eligible for spousal equivalent benefits.

Civil unions have taken the place of domestic partnerships, but the concept is similar. What Cordileone is now proposing is similar to what Levada offered.

There are millions of Americans who live with their father or mother, or their sibling, or other relatives, providing much needed care. Why should they be shut out from a program designed to make spousal benefits more extensive? Why should we be speaking only about homosexuals?

Archbishop Cordileone knows the difference between civil unions and marriage, and will never support any measure that would dilute the latter. “Marriage is unique because it is the only institution that connects children to their mothers and fathers, and therefore is presumed to be a sexual relationship. Indeed, the sexual relationship that marriage is presumed to involve is the only kind by which children are naturally made” (his italic).

Legal fictions are nothing new. Every honest person knows that a certificate of marriage granted by the state to persons of the same sex cannot change what nature and nature’s God have ordained. The biological and social purpose of marriage is the family, something which two men and two women can never naturally create. Providing for inclusive civil unions do nothing to vitiate this verity.

Kudos to Archbishop Cordileone for mapping out a realistic proposal.

Bill in the News (Daily Mail):

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the pope’s stance on civil unions asking “If the pope did not change any Church teaching on homosexuality or marriage, why did he make the remarks attributed to him in the documentary?” READ MORE HERE

Catholic League president Bill Donohue responds to news stories about the pope endorsing civil unions for homosexuals:

In a new documentary about Pope Francis, “Francesco,” the Holy Father comments on homosexuals. “Homosexual people have the right to be in a family. They are children of God. You can’t kick someone out of a family, nor make their life miserable for this. What we have to have is a civil union law; that way they are legally covered.”

The Vatican website posts a news release on the movie but makes no mention of the pope’s reflections on homosexuals. Is it because what he said does not change Church doctrine? Or is it because they want to avoid controversy? The former is true and the latter may also be.

Before commenting on what the pope said, it is important to recognize what he did not say. He did not endorse gay marriage. That is because he cannot: It would be against everything he has previously said, and it would conflict with official Church teachings on the subject.

In 2010, Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the Archbishop of Buenos Aires (and future Pope Francis), mobilized Catholics to defeat a law affirming gay marriage. Though he failed in his quest, he was quite blunt about his opposition to same-sex marriage.

“At stake is the identity and survival of the family: father, mother and children. At stake are the lives of many children who will be discriminated against in advance, and deprived of their human development given by a father and a mother and willed by God. At stake is the total rejection of God’s law engraved in our hearts.”

Who was behind the push for gay marriage? Satan.

“Let us not be naive: this is not simply a political struggle, but it is an attempt to destroy God’s plan. It is not just a bill (a mere instrument) but a ‘move’ of the father of lies who seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God.” The “father of lies” whom he speaks of is the Devil.

The would-be pope tried to work out a compromise with Argentinean authorities at the time. That is why he floated the idea of recognizing civil unions. But it was clear that would not satisfy, so nothing came of it.

The pope’s statement about homosexuals having a right to be in a family, and that they cannot be kicked out, is of course true. He was referring to what sociologists call the “family of orientation,” meaning the family we were born into. He was not referring to what is called the “family of procreation,” meaning the family we make as adults.

To be exact, homosexual acts cannot result in procreation, which is why the Church teaches that homosexuality is intrinsically disordered. Indeed, homosexuals owe their very existence to opposite-sex unions. Moreover, the pope knows that “gay families” are not legitimate.

Two years ago, Pope Francis said only heterosexuals can form a family. “It is painful to say this today: People speak of varied families, of various kinds of families,” but “the family [as] man and woman in the image of God is the only one.”

If the pope did not change any Church teaching on homosexuality or marriage, why did he make the remarks attributed to him in the documentary?

This appears to be one more instance where he is trying to reach out to homosexuals, letting them know that their sexual status does not disqualify them from God’s love. There is a huge difference, however, between the sexual status of an individual, and the social status of an institution, such as marriage and the family. The pope knows the difference, even if some of his gay fans do not.

It would be helpful for the Vatican to clarify what the pope meant. The content of his remarks is not problematic, but the lack of context is. The laity need clarity, not confusion.

Bill in the News (Orlando Sentinel):

Catholic League president Bill Donohue notes that the pope did not change church doctrine regarding his comments on civil unions because “It would be against everything he has previously said, and it would conflict with official Church teachings on the subject.” READ MORE HERE