Bill In The News (The Telegraph):

The Oxford Union has been accused of “no platforming” the head of a prominent right-wing Catholic organisation.

William Donohue, President of the Catholic League, an American civil rights group, claimed he had been unceremoniously “uninvited” to speak at an upcoming debate.

The debate, titled This House Believes The Catholic Church Can Never Pay For Its Sins, is due to be held this term. Mr Donohue said he is “appalled” at the way he has been treated by the 800-year-old debating society. Read More Here

Bill In The News (Breitbart):

The Oxford Union has disinvited William Donohue, President of the Catholic League, an American civil rights group, to speak at an upcoming debate.

The debate, titled “This House Believes the Catholic Church Can Never Pay for Its Sins,” is due to be held this term, the Telegraph reported, but will be going ahead without the participation of Dr. Donohue.

Donohue, who holds a doctorate in social science, said he is “appalled” at the way he has been treated by the nearly 200-year-old debating society. Read More Here

Bill Donohue discusses how the Oxford Union, after inviting him to participate in one of their storied debates, disinvited him and lied to him about it.

Last month, Catholic League president Bill Donohue was invited by the president of the Oxford Union to participate in one of their storied debates. Donohue was to speak to the motion, “The House Believes The Catholic Church Can Never Pay For Its Sins.”

The debate was slated for February 28. On January 9, Catholic League director of communications Rick Hinshaw sought to firm up some remaining details. He was told that they offered Donohue’s spot to someone else.

To read Donohue’s letter to Oxford Union president Daniel Wilkinson, click here.

To read the correspondence, click here.

Here is what Donohue said about this issue today:

I have been lied to by the Oxford Union. Either no one will debate me or someone got to Wilkinson and nixed the invitation. Either way, it shows what a fraud these people are. They speak endlessly about the virtue of free speech and their commitment to honest debates, yet their public pronouncements are belied by their actions.

That Wilkinson chose not to reply to my letter—I gave him two days—makes him doubly delinquent. It does not speak well for the Oxford Union that they have people like him in senior positions.

Contact Wilkinson: president@oxford-union.org

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on an editorial in today’s New York Times:

Is it morally acceptable to slash the neck of an animal? Is it morally acceptable to slash the neck of a baby? The New York Times waffles on the former but agrees with the latter.

“Balancing Animal Welfare and Religious Rites” is the title of an editorial in the January 9 edition of the New York Times. It would have been just as accurate to use “Rights” instead of “Rites,” but that would have cast the issue in terms of religious liberty, instead of anthropology, and that is not something the Times is ordinarily disposed to supporting.

The occasion for the editorial is a new Belgium law prohibiting Muslims and Jews from slaughtering animals by slashing their necks (a staple in halal and kosher preparation). The law mandates that such a practice amounts to animal cruelty and cannot be carried out without first stunning the animal (e.g., using electric shock).

Most observant Muslims and Jews are not happy with the new law and see it as an infringement on their religious liberty. The Times understands their concerns, saying, “dietary laws are of enormous importance to people of the Jewish and Muslim faiths.” But it also sees the merit in the animal rights argument: killing the animals with a single cut is inhumane.

Which side does the Times embrace? It wimps out. It calls for a new “conversation on balancing” the two rights. It attributes its agnosticism to concerns that “right-wing politicians” have taken the animal-rights side because they are really anti-Jewish and anti-Muslim. Somehow we knew the right-wingers would get into the act.

Ironically, and sadly, the Times’ sudden interest in balancing religious liberty interests with the humane treatment of animals does not extend to human beings. The newspaper is midway through publishing a series of editorials on abortion that are as radical as anything ever found in the mainstream media. Never once is there even a genuflection to the competing rights of unborn children, throughout all nine months.

The New York Times is an enthusiastic defender of partial-birth abortion, which, as National Right to Life describes, involves slicing and dicing the baby. To be exact, “The abortionist punctures the base of the baby’s skull with a surgical instrument” before using a “powerful suction machine.”

If only unborn kids were cows. Then the New York Times wouldn’t be so energetic about slashing their necks.

Contact James Bennet, editorial page editor: james.bennet@nytimes.com

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the way critics of German Cardinal Walter Brandmüller have reacted to his remarks on priestly sexual abuse:

The recent statements by Cardinal Walter Brandmüller on the subject of clergy sexual abuse have been unfairly characterized. He made four key points, all of which are eminently defensible.

1. The former head of the Pontifical Committee for Historical Sciences noted that “80% of the cases of sexual assault in the Church affected male youths, not children.“

Brandmüller is correct. We know from the John Jay study that 81% of the victims were males and 78% were postpubescent. That is why it is fair to say that homosexuality is the problem, not pedophilia. Indeed, less than five percent of the cases of sexual abuse involved pedophilia. The time has come to stop denying this verity. It is factually incorrect to maintain otherwise.

2. Brandmüller said that “only a vanishingly small number” of priests have been predators.

This is also true. In the U.S., recent data show that .005% of the clergy have had a credible accusation made against them in the last two years for which we have data. No institution can match this level of success: the Dallas reforms have worked in the U.S.; other nations have shown similar progress.

3. It is “hypocritical” for society to condemn clergy sexual abuse, Brandmüller said, while not condemning the same problem in other quarters. He observed that “the real scandal is that the Catholic Church hasn’t distinguished herself from the rest of society.”

He nailed it. I would go further. Among those screaming the loudest about the sexual abuse scandal are those who have rejected Catholic teachings on sexual ethics: they find them too restrictive. Yet it was libertinism, not sexual reticence, that caused the scandal. Moreover, it was libertinism, deeply ingrained in Western nations, that brought about moral decay in the dominant culture. The Church should not have followed this cultural vector—it should have stood against it.

4. Brandmüller expressed concerns about homosexuals in the priesthood.

Pope Francis and Pope Benedict XVI have both warned about preventing men with “deeply-seated homosexual tendencies” from entering the priesthood. This is just common sense: Brandmüller was simply echoing what they said.

Cardinal Walter Brandmüller is to be commended for speaking the truth. In doing so, he joins an increasing number of bishops and cardinals who refuse to be intimidated by those whose politics trump their ability to see things clearly.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on Congressional Catholics:

The 163 Catholics in the new Congress are split on abortion: almost all Republicans are pro-life and almost all Democrats are abortion-rights advocates.

For incumbents, we checked their voting record as scored by NARAL and National Right to Life. Typically, those who received a 100% NARAL score garnered a 0% rating from National Right to Life (which would be most Democrats), and vice versa (which would be most Republicans).

For Freshmen, we checked their stated positions on abortion, and the endorsements they received from pro-life and abortion-rights groups.

There were a few notable exceptions. Among them are Rep. Daniel Lipinski, a Democrat from Illinois: he received a 51% rating from NARAL and a 75% score from National Right to Life.

More Republicans than Democrats differed with the majority in their own party.

For example, Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska agreed with NARAL 42% of the time, and with National Right to Life 28% of the time. Sen. Susan Collins of Maine received a 45% score from NARAL and a 42% score from National Right to Life. Rep. Walter B. Jones of North Carolina garnered a score of 51% from NARAL and a rating of 85% from National Right to Life.

It is obvious that religion is not a reliable predictor of the way a Catholic member of the Congress will vote on abortion. Party matters—not religion. To see the entire list, click here.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on actor Christian Bale’s remarks last night at the Golden Globes Awards:

“Thank you, Satan.” That’s what British-American actor Christian Bale said upon winning the Golden Globes award for best actor. His shot was aimed at former vice president Dick Cheney, whom he played in “Vice.”

The crowd loved it. Not surprisingly, the Church of Satan commended him for his remarks. Had Bale thanked Jesus, all of them would have been stunned. And disappointed.

Raised without any religion, Bale’s vision of Christianity was Hollywoodish from the get-go. “I always pictured Jesus as Neil Diamond when I was younger.”

When Bale played Moses in Ridley Scott’s “Exodus: Gods and Kings,” he once again showcased his intellectual prowess by calling Moses a “schizophrenic,” a “barbarian,” and a “terrorist.”

This guy has some real issues. In 2008, he was accused of assaulting his mother and his sister, the kind of thing even Satanists would be reluctant to applaud. It now becomes obvious why he was chosen to star in the 2000 movie, “American Psycho.” That was a natural for him. What’s next is anyone’s guess.

On November 1, President Donald Trump nominated Mary Anne Carter to be the new chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). We labored hard to affect this decision, and we are delighted with his choice.

Heading the NEA is one of the most important posts in the nation affecting the culture, and we trust that Ms. Carter will not disappoint us. She needs to be confirmed by the Senate.

Carter is well prepared to hit the ground running. She has served as senior White House advisor to the NEA since the early days of the Trump administration, and has been acting chairman since June. Her advocacy for the arts has won the plaudits of Republicans and Democrats alike.

Raised in a military family, “MAC” as she is called by her friends, was chosen by Florida Governor Rick Scott to be his chief of staff. She oversaw and implemented his agenda, handling everything from budgetary matters to communications. Prior to that position, she served as Executive Director for Conservatives for Patients’ Rights. She also did a stint at the Heritage Foundation where she was Director of U.S. Senate Relations.

This announcement means a great deal to the Catholic League. For the past ten months, we have been pushing for a morally responsible person to head the NEA. Here’s why.

At the end of last year, we learned that the most obscene assault on Christians ever staged, “Jerry Springer: The Opera,” was coming to New York City in January. An NEA grant was given to the production company of this vile musical, the New Group, under the tenure of the outgoing NEA chairman, Dr. Jane Chu.

On January 23, 2018, Bill Donohue held a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington D.C. objecting to the NEA funding of the New Group. He was joined by Brent Bozell, president of the Media Research Center and a member of the Catholic League’s advisory board, Dr. Deal Hudson of the Christian Review and a member of the Catholic League’s board of directors, and Ralph Reed, founder and president of the Faith and Freedom Coalition.

The next day Donohue sent a letter to President Trump asking him to honor our request: “Please appoint someone who will not continue to fund anti-Catholic grantees, exhibitions, or performances.”

The day after Donohue’s letter to the president, the Catholic League president kept the pressure on by sending a strongly worded letter to NEA Chairman Dr. Chu, registering his concerns. She wrote back and Donohue offered a blunt response.

By choosing Mary Anne Carter to head the NEA, President Trump has made good on our request. Congratulations to him, Ms. Carter, and all of those who supported us in this effort. This is also a victory for the arts, properly understood.

The Christmas censors wasted no time this year trying to censor Christmas. The Chesterfield County Schools in Virginia yielded to a few students who objected to

Christmas songs that mentioned Jesus; all such songs were banned. If they had it their way, Christmas would be banned, not simply lyrics that mention Jesus.

In 2017, there was a nativity scene at the Ravenna Courthouse Lawn, but this year it has been banned. The mayor in this Ohio town said, “When people complained, I could not defend it. For me, if I cannot defend something when people complain, I should not be doing it.” Untrue. If people complained about his delinquent leadership, he would be unable to defend himself, yet he would not resign.

Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) is one of the most strident anti-Christian groups in the nation. They are trying to get a cross and a star removed from a public park in the Pennsylvania borough of Honesdale. But they have been met with opposition from Christians and Jews alike.

FFRF also objected to a nativity scene on the property of Oscoda Township in Michigan. Christians took the matter into their own hands and arranged to have the crèche erected on private property across the street from the township hall.

The Catholic League will erect its life-size nativity scene in Central Park on December 12. Check it out if you get to New York—it’s right in front of the Plaza Hotel.