Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on why he is appealing to Michigan officials to probe the public schools:

As we pointed out recently, perverts and rapists are preying on public school students in Michigan today, yet neither Governor Gretchen Whitmer nor Attorney General Dana Nessel are asking for an investigation of the schools. That’s because they are too busy hounding the Catholic Church.

Nessel recently started an investigation of clergy sexual abuse, but not of ministers, rabbis, or imams—only Catholic priests—and Whitmer is asking state legislators for a $2 million supplemental allocation to pay for the Catholic probe.

Why only Catholic priests? Was there some breaking news that priests are on a rampage molesting students? No. It is due to one thing: the Pennsylvania grand jury report released last year that detailed wholly unchallenged and unsubstantiated charges against priests, most of whom were dead or out of ministry.

Why was the Pennsylvania grand jury report launched? Not because of some pending crisis initiated by law enforcement or reporters. It began because one bishop turned in one high school faculty member who was accused of an offense in the 1990s.

Now ask yourself this question: If a school superintendent turned in a teacher for an old offense, would Pennsylvania’s Attorney General launch an investigation of every public school in the state dating back to when Truman was president?

In any event, what does this have to do with Michigan? Nessel argues that if there were cases of abuse in Pennsylvania—dating back to World War II—then surely there must be cases in Michigan. Surely there are. Ditto for the public schools. So why aren’t lawmakers being asked to investigate them?

Does Michigan have a problem with public school students being sexually abused? Clearly it does. How do we know? Because in the 50- state analysis of this issue conducted by USA Today, published in 2016, Michigan was rated among the worst in the nation: It received a grade of “F.” Also, in 2017, CARE House ranked Michigan 6th in the nation in the number of cases of human trafficking.

Accordingly, I am writing to Governor Whitmer and the entire state legislature asking for an investigation of sexual abuse in the public schools. If they decide to cherry pick the Catholic Church, they would be guilty of religious profiling. Moreover, the courts may see them as engaging in religious discrimination. Surely many Catholics, and non-Catholics, would.

The Catholic League takes this issue seriously. That is why we filed an amicus brief defending the rights of priests in Pennsylvania last year. We won, 6-1, in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court last December.

We will be monitoring all Michigan public officials on this matter, and will take whatever steps are necessary to assure justice. We will also keep Michigan Catholics in the loop as events unfold.

Contact Governor Whitmer’s chief of staff, JoAnne Huls: HulsJ1@michigan.gov

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on an opinion piece by syndicated columnist George Will that appeared in the March 12 edition of the Chicago Tribune:

Opinion writers who opine about matters they are not well grounded in are a problem. George Will is such a man. A devout atheist, he takes the Catholic Church to task for offenses, real and contrived, relying heavily on the work of Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, the man behind the discredited Pennsylvania grand jury report on the Church.

If Will took the time to read the grand jury report, which I did, and if he took the time to read the John Jay reports on the issue of clergy abuse, which I did, he would not appear so gullible.

I debunked the grand jury report when it was released. One of the myths I addressed is taken up by Will. He begins his article by saying, “‘Horseplay,’ a term to denote child-rape, is, says Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, part of a sinister glossary of euphemisms by which the Catholic Church’s bureaucracy obfuscates the church’s ‘pattern of abuse’ and conspiracy of silence.”

Will took Shapiro’s bait. First of all, most of the alleged victims were neither children nor were they raped: inappropriate touching of adolescents—which is indefensible—was the typical offense. So stop the hyperbole, Mr. Will.

Also, the word “horseplay” was not part of the lexicon of Church officials: it appears once in over 1300 pages of the report, and it was used to describe the behavior of a seminarian. Once again, Will fell for Shapiro’s ploy.

Don’t take my word for it—read what Peter Steinfels said about Shapiro’s grand jury report; he is a former religion reporter for the New York Times.

After reading the report, fact checking the accusations, and speaking to those familiar with the report, including people in Shapiro’s office, Steinfels concluded that Shapiro’s most serious and sweeping indictments of the Church are “grossly misleading, irresponsible, inaccurate, and unjust.”

Don’t take Steinfels’ word for it—consider what happened in December. That’s when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled 6-1 in favor of eleven accused priests who claimed that releasing their names to the public would violate their reputational rights as guaranteed by the Pennsylvania Constitution. The Catholic League filed an amicus brief in this case.

The court ruled that the report contained “false, misleading, incorrect and unsupported accusations.”

Will needs to rewrite his article, rebutting what I said, what Steinfels wrote, and what the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled.

He should know better than to cite a grand jury report as the basis of his article. The priests named in the grand jury report were never afforded the right to challenge the accusations. That is because such reports are investigative, not evidentiary.

In 2015, after Will accused Pope Francis of standing against “modernity, rationality, science, and ultimately…open societies,” I wrote the following about him: “He is an educated man, but his grasp of Catholicism is on a par with that of Bill Maher’s.” Looks like nothing has changed.

Contact: georgewill@washpost.com

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the “Equality Act,” which is expected to be introduced this week:

The Equality Act has been around for decades, under various names, but it always fails. It will again this year, even if it clears the House; Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the House Speaker, has said the legislation is a priority for the new Congress. If most Americans knew what it is really about, they would not support it.

This bill is not about equality—it is about trashing the free exercise of religion as guaranteed by the First Amendment. In effect, it would gut the constitutionally sound practice of awarding religious exemptions whenever there is a conflict between religious expression and the rights of homosexuals and the sexually confused (e.g., a man who thinks he is a woman, and vice versa).

The Equality Act has two major goals: (a) it would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to ban discrimination against homosexuals and the sexually confused, and (b) it would undermine the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993 by allowing gay rights to trump religious rights.

The predicate of this legislation is that sexual orientation and gender identity are analogous to race and ethnicity, and are therefore deserving of the same protections afforded by the Civil Rights Act. However, that is based on a false assumption.

Sexual orientation speaks to behavior, and gender identity, in this context, refers to the sexually confused; by contrast, neither race nor ethnicity are a function of volition.

While no one can justify unequal treatment on the basis of ascribed characteristics such as race and ethnicity, justifying disparate treatment on the basis of achieved characteristics such as sexual orientation and gender identity can be justified in some instances.

For example, religiously devout parents may rightly object to having their children counseled by a woman who has acquired male genitalia. In normal times, this would not be controversial. Sadly, we live in abnormal times.

There is one very important aspect of the Equality Act that has been generally ignored, even by its critics: It would mean that homosexuals and the sexually confused would qualify for affirmative action.

Of course, the Equality Act says nothing of the kind. It is deceptive. In fact, it pulls the affirmative action trigger.

When the Civil Rights Act was proposed, Sen. Hubert Humphrey, the majority whip, explained that “the proponents of the bill have carefully stated on numerous occasions that Title VII does not require an employer to achieve any sort of racial balance in his work force by giving preferential treatment to any individual or group.” He even went so far as to say that he would “start eating the pages [of the bill] one after another” if any such language were found.

Humphrey was right about the bill—it explicitly prohibited preferential treatment. But he was wrong regarding its interpretation by administrative agencies and the courts. In its wake have come goals, timetables, quotas, utilization studies, validation tests, maps, charts, graphs, as well as bureaucrats armed with their supplementary updates. And lots of lawsuits, most of which affirmed preferential treatment.

Hence, if African Americans qualify for preferential treatment because of the way the Civil Rights Act has been interpreted, then there is no stopping homosexuals and the sexually confused from qualifying were the Equality Act to pass.

This would mean that an employer who is a practicing Catholic, evangelical Christian, observant Jew, Muslim, or Mormon, would be expected to give preferential treatment to homosexuals and the sexually confused (save for small businessmen) when hiring.

We cannot allow the Pelosi rule—pass the bill and then we’ll figure out what it means—to be operative. We already know what it would lead to, and that is not something most Americans would ever support.

Contact Pelosi’s chief of staff: robert.edmonson@mail.house.gov

On March 14, the National Conference of Jewish Affairs will hold a sit-in at Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s congressional office at the Longworth House Office Building (15 Independent Ave SE, Washington DC) at 1:00 p.m.

The occasion of the protest is the failure of the Democrat leadership to adequately respond to the anti-Semitism of Rep. Ilhan Omar and Rep. Rashida Tlaib.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue issued the following remarks today on this subject:

We applaud the work of our friend, Rabbi Aryeh Spero, for leading the sit-in at Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s office. She acted cowardly by yielding to the voices of extremism in her Party. Rep. Omar, Rep. Tlaib and some other zealots wanted, and succeeded in getting, a statement on bigotry that was ultimately flatulent. We labeled it a “sham” for diluting the initial statement condemning anti-Semitism

Anti-Semitism is a scourge that must be stamped out wherever it exists. That it exists within a segment of the Democratic Party is obvious. It needs to be expunged without further delay.

Catholics are urged to stand with our Jewish allies. To learn more about the sit-in call Rabbi Spero at (212) 252-6861. Call Pelosi’s office (202) 225-4965.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the death of Robert P. Lockwood:

Bob Lockwood passed away March 4. He was one of the most prolific Catholic journalists of our time, writing columns and books for Our Sunday Visitor for decades. He was also the president of Our Sunday Visitor Publishing, a company he brought to a new level of excellence. His last post was as director of communications for the Diocese of Pittsburgh.

I knew Bob well. He was a member of the Catholic League’s board of directors. He later served as our director of research and was then named to our board of advisors.

There was nothing Bob wouldn’t do for the Catholic Church, or the Catholic League. He never turned down an assignment and worked diligently on every project he undertook.

Besides being an astute writer, editor, and publisher, Bob was fun to work with, and he loved a new challenge. Gregarious and good humored, he was the kind of person every organization, Catholic or otherwise, would love to have on staff.

God bless Bob Lockwood. He left us too soon; he was 69.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on a response by the Associated Press (AP) to an earlier news release today:

A few hours ago, we said that we learned from PJ Media that AP posted a false statement about a Catholic priest on the website of an ABC affiliate in Nebraska, KLKN-TV. The ad was about a drag queen entertainer, “Father” Anthony Capretta, who, we were able to verify, is not a priest.

Lauren Easton of AP, the person whom we listed as the contact person at AP, called to say that it had nothing to do with the posting. We have no reason to believe that she is not telling the truth.

So who is responsible? The TV station told PJ Media that it has no control over what AP posts on its website, and disavows culpability. This, in itself, is remarkable. AP, according to PJ Media, did not respond when asked for a comment. Now AP says no one contacted them. Attempts to contact PJ Media were unsuccessful.

The offensive ad—libeling priests—did not get posted by magic. So while we are not happy with the refusal of the guilty party to own up, fairness dictates that we not malign the innocent. That is why we have deleted the earlier news release on this subject.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on a remark made on NBC’s “Saturday Night Live,” and addresses the flair up over comments made by Fox News host Jeanine Pirro:

“But if you support the Catholic Church, isn’t that like the same thing as being an R. Kelly fan?”

That’s what Pete Davidson said on “Saturday Night Live.” In doing so, he libeled all priests. He did not compare the alleged predator to an alleged predatory priest—he compared Kelly to the entire Catholic clergy. His bigoted remark deserves to be condemned by everyone.

Should Davidson be fired? That’s a drastic action, one suitable for (a) those who make comments that are so serious and injurious that anything less would be unacceptable and (b) recidivists. Because we are not aware of any anti-Catholic comments that Davidson has previously made, we are not calling for his dismissal. But executives at NBC need to talk to him without delay. If he strikes again, our response will be different.

Regrettably, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Catholic League analogue in the Muslim community, is asking Fox News to fire Jeanine Pirro for comments she made about Rep. Ilhan Omar on the same night that Davidson made his remark. CAIR did not cite a single previous instance where it objected to Pirro.

From our perspective, if there is a comment that is so egregious as to be completely indefensible—a 10 on a scale of 1 to 10—then calling for a TV host or entertainer to be fired may be warranted. But when it does not reach that level, and there is no history of similar statements, then calls for dismissal are unwarranted.

Contact Lauren Manasevit, press manager for “SNL”: lauren.manasevit@nbcuni.com

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the decision of a Catholic school to deny admission to the child of gay parents:

The child of gay parents was denied admission to St. Ann Catholic School in Prairie Village, Kansas. Some Catholics are so upset that they started a petition to protest the decision. The pastor, Father Craig Maxim, reiterated Catholic doctrine, and he was subsequently supported by Kansas City Archbishop Joseph Naumann.

There really should be no issue here, but increasingly Catholic schools are faced with similar challenges.

Parents are not required to enroll their children in a Catholic school, but once they elect to do so, they are obliged to follow its strictures. If they find some of the rules disagreeable, they are free to enroll their child in some other school. They are not free to reject those rules and then claim victim status. Nor are they free to enlist others in their effort to override school and Church authorities. Mutiny is not acceptable.

This is not simply a matter of maintaining fidelity to Catholic teachings; it is a matter of respecting diversity. Catholic schools offer a diverse educational alternative to public schools and other private institutions. Everyone should respect their right to autonomy, regardless of whether they agree with Catholic teachings.

The petition is straightforward. “Respectfully, we believe that the decision to deny a child of God access to such a wonderful community and education, based on the notion that his or her parent’s [sic] union is not in accordance with the Church teaching in Sacramental marriage, lacks the compassion and mercy of Christ’s message.”

The petition reeks of a simplistic sentimentalism and is incredibly myopic. The issue is not about one child—it is about all students.

Catholic students who are taught that marriage is between a man and a woman—not two men or two women or multiple partners—cannot be expected to respect the Church’s teaching on marriage if some of their classmates have two fathers. If the teachers and administrators sanction gay marriage, why should students feel obliged to abide by Church teachings on any subject?

The central issue is not hard to understand, though it is increasingly resisted in today’s society. Gay couples are denied by nature, and nature’s God, the ability to procreate. That’s the way it works. Gays may adopt children, but in doing so they are ineluctably paying homage to nature, and nature’s God—their adoptive children were made possible because of a union between a man and a woman. That’s the way it works.

Catholic teachings on sexuality, marriage and the family respect what nature, and nature’s God, have decreed. Anyone is free to disagree. They can even pretend that everything that exists is nothing but a social construction. But they are not entitled to force those of us who know better to yield to their fantasies.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on a House vote on bigotry:

After bickering back and forth all week about whether to condemn anti-Semitism, the Democrats in the House, led by Rep. Nancy Pelosi, have descended to tribalism, the hallmark of identity politics. Just about every “persecuted minority” was thrown a bone, though somehow the South Sea Islanders were overlooked.

Much of the resolution focuses on the reason why this issue has emerged: the anti-Semitic remarks made by Rep. Ilhan Omar (though she is not mentioned by name). But the lobbying to include equal time condemning anti-Muslim bigotry paid off, thus undercutting the purpose of the resolution.

Though Pelosi is politically savvy, she is not known for her intellect. She proved this again with her remarkable statement defending Omar.

“I don’t think the congresswoman perhaps doesn’t appreciate how it was heard by other people although I don’t believe it was intended as anti-Semitic although that’s how it was interpreted.” What a wordsmith!

In fact, Omar meant exactly what she said. This is why she stepped on the gas after being criticized for her previous recent remarks. Indeed, the occasion for the resolution was her quip about Jews pledging their allegiance to Israel over America.

The larger point is this: If bigoted hate speech now depends on how it is interpreted, or heard by others, then it is non-existent. Just ask the bigot’s followers. If their hero puts a swastika on a synagogue, they can say they interpret that as a love letter. Since truth is a fiction—another gift from the Left—then bigotry is purely in the eye of the beholder.

Catholics will love to know what the resolution says about anti-Catholicism. There is one section about charges of dual loyalty, which include when the “loyalty of President John F. Kennedy was questioned because of his Catholic faith.” That’s it. It’s also inaccurate. The anti-Catholicism that JFK experienced did not occur when he was president: it occurred when he was running for president, in an attempt to stop him.

There is nothing in the resolution about what we detailed yesterday, namely the anti-Catholic comments made by Democrats. When they question Catholic candidates for the federal bench, their bigotry shines brightly. We cited five sitting Senators—Schumer, Durbin, Feinstein, Hirono, and Harris (the latter is running for president).

This vote is a sham.

Contact Pelosi’s chief of staff: robert.edmonson@mail.house.gov

The March 5 edition of the Wall Street Journal contained a serious error. The newspaper was contacted by University of Mississippi law professor Ronald Rychlak about a photo of Pope Pius XII that suggests the Holy Father was sympathetic to the Nazis.

We are not pleased that the newspaper has not contacted Rychlak saying it will run his letter, but we are pleased to note that in an online posting they have accepted his criticism and changed the photo to reflect a more accurate depiction.

Rychlak is one of the world’s leading authorities on the role of the Catholic Church’s opposition to Hitler. He has authored several books on this subject, including Hitler, the War, and the Pope. He serves on the board of advisors of the Catholic League.

Here are his remarks, setting the record straight.

“The caption of the picture accompanying Francis X. Rocca’s article on the opening of Pope Pius XII’s archives (‘Vatican to Open Secret Archives on Wartime Pope Pius XII’). The caption says ‘Pope Pius in Berlin in 1939. The pope has been criticized for not speaking out against the Holocaust.’ That is incorrect.

“This photograph, a favorite of those who seek to portray Pius XII in an unfavorable light, was actually taken in 1927. It shows Nuncio Pacelli, the future Pope Pius XII who was at that time a Vatican representative to Germany, leaving a reception for President Hindenburg. It is a Weimar soldier, not a Nazi soldier, in the foreground. Pacelli left Germany in 1929, before Hitler came to power, and he never returned.

“The dating of this photograph to 1939 was (to my knowledge) first done by John Cornwell in the British edition of his book when he put that photo on the cover. After objection from the Vatican, the publisher changed the date to 1929 (still incorrect, but at least prior to the Nazi era). Cornwell used the same photograph with the correct date on the U.S. edition of his book, but the photo was cropped to eliminate the soldier nearest the camera (making it hard to recognize that he was a Weimar soldier, not a Nazi), darkened (making it appear more sinister), and blurred (so that a chauffeur in the background takes on the appearance of an SS officer). Unfortunately, such manipulation of evidence has been far too common in this debate.”