Bill in the News (Catholic News Agency): In a news release, Bill Donohue, the president of the Catholic League, called the image “dumb, but not bigoted.”
“What Trump did was silly, but it was hardly an expression of bigotry,” Donohue said. “We deal with real cases of anti-Catholicism at the Catholic League, not junior-league pranks.” READ MORE HERE
When I learned of President Trump posting an AI-generated image of himself dressed as the pope, I told a CBS reporter that it was dumb, but not bigoted. Here’s why.
What Trump did was analogous to what Whoopi Goldberg did in playing a nun in “Sister Act.” While I have criticized her for some comments she has made about priests, I have never criticized her for “Sister Act.”
There are Halloween costumes of nuns that are playful, but not malicious. I never address them. But I have objected to some that are vulgar. There is a difference. Context matters, and to some extent so does intent.
“Saturday Night Live” had good fun with Trump’s “pope” stunt, and that is all fine and good. On the other hand, it is bizarre to see left-wing Democrats like Bill Kristol getting exercised about Trump, but they never open their mouth when egregious examples of Catholic bashing occur. Just recently, Bill Maher mocked the Eucharist, the heart of Catholicism, and Trump’s critics said nothing.
We don’t play favorites at the Catholic League. I recently wrote a letter to the Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Ethics Committee asking for a House censure of Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene. She noted that on April 21 there were “major shifts in global leadership. Evil is being defeated by the hand of God.” As Newsweek reported, that was the day Pope Francis died and Klaus Schwab resigned from the World Economic Forum.
As I said to the House Ethics Committee leaders, “It is obvious that Greene’s remark about God defeating ‘evil’ was aimed at the Holy Father. How can we be sure? In 2022, I asked the Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Ethics Committee to sanction Greene for saying, ‘Satan’s controlling the church.’ In short, she has a history of slandering Catholics.”
We are working with the staff of U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, supplying them with documents that offer proof of anti-Christian bias stemming from the federal government. We are dealing with serious matters, e.g., legislation that would force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions and sex-reassignment surgery.
What Trump did was silly, but it was hardly an expression of bigotry. We deal with real cases of anti-Catholicism at the Catholic League, not junior league pranks.
Conor Gallagher, CEO of TAN Books (Saint Benedict Press), recently interviewed Bill Donohue at their headquarters in Charlotte, North Carolina. It was a wide-ranging and thought-provoking conversation about the legacy of Pope Francis, the rise of the Latin Mass, and what lies ahead for the Catholic Church.
Bill Donohue doesn’t hold back—offering decades of insight on:
If you’re a serious Catholic or care about the future of the Church, this is a must-watch episode.
To watch click, here.
Conor Gallagher, CEO of TAN Books (Saint Benedict Press), recently interviewed Bill Donohue at their headquarters in Charlotte, North Carolina. It was a wide-ranging and thought-provoking conversation about the legacy of Pope Francis, the rise of the Latin Mass, and what lies ahead for the Catholic Church. To watch, click here.
David Horowitz, the former radical turned conservative, died April 29 after battling cancer. He was 86. He was a good friend, a brilliant speaker and writer, and a man of tremendous courage.
David was born and raised in Queens. To this day, when I take the Long Island Rail Road leaving Manhattan, passing into Queens, I look out the window and see the sign for Skillman Avenue. I think of David—that is where he grew up, in Long Island City.
His parents were diehard communists, and raised him as a “Red Diaper Baby.” Their indoctrination paid off, at least initially. In the 1960s and 1970s, he was a leader of the New Left, stoking anti-Americanism. He befriended Huey Newton, founder of the Black Panther Party, but later split with them once he learned they were involved in the death of a friend of his, Betty Van Patter.
David, and his friend, Peter Collier, founded Ramparts, a radical magazine that cheered for a communist victory in Vietnam. But as he watched what the communists did in Vietnam, his enthusiasm for Marxism soured. The final straw came in the late 1970s when Pol Pot murdered two-in-five of his fellow Cambodians. This shook him intellectually.
Then came the election of Ronald Reagan. This further triggered the reset: David became a rabid pro-American conservative. In 1987, he held a “Second Thoughts Conference” in Washington D.C. This is where he, and other ex-New Left activists, explained why they had had “Second Thoughts” about their political philosophy. Communist genocide has a way of shaking honest people up.
In the early 1990s, he and Peter founded Heterodoxy, a brilliant monthly that broke new grounds. Later in the decade, the David Horowitz Freedom Center was launched, and with it the influential publication, FrontPage magazine.
Peter had made such a turnaround that he called me at the Catholic League in the late 1990s to congratulate me on my work. More important, he said he made his way back to Catholicism.
It was about that time when David asked me to speak at a conference in Los Angeles that would assess the cultural impact that Hollywood was having. I was scheduled to be there anyway—Jeffrey Katzenberg invited me to review his yet-to-be released movie, Prince of Egypt (which I applauded), so I agreed.
It was an enormous room—full of actors, producers and directors—and virtually all of the speakers put a positive face on Hollywood. Until I spoke. After I finished with my remarks, the man sitting next to me on the platform turned to me and said, “They are going to have to get extra security to escort you out of here.”
What did I say that upset the elites? I told them they were a bunch of phonies. One after another, I said, you came to the microphone to tell us that you don’t allow your children to watch the television shows that you make. No, you said, your children watch Nickelodeon. I asked, “So whose children are your shows good for?” They knew exactly what I meant. The room was dead silent. But David loved it.
David was fond of saying that many conservatives don’t get it. They are so nice. The problem with that is they seriously underestimate how vicious the Left is. They need to toughen up. They don’t understand how driven and malicious radicals are.
In more recent years, David wrote a blurb for one my books, and I endorsed one of his. He was always honest and full of energy.
As he grew intellectually, David, who was Jewish, became a staunch advocate of Christianity. He saw the cultural rot that militant secularism wrought, concluding that an ascendant Christianity was badly needed.
Not surprisingly, the Left turned on him, hating his slide to conservatism. But he didn’t care—all he cared about was telling the truth.
America has lost a great one. I was honored to have known David Horowitz as a friend. May he rest in peace.
While most people treated the news of the passing of Pope Francis with somberness and dignity, notorious Catholic-basher Bill Maher could not keep himself from making crude and irreverent comments. On the April 25 episode of “Real Time,” the bigoted HBO host used the eve of the papal funeral to insult a central tenet of the Catholic faith, the Eucharist.
On Friday, Maher began talking about Pope Francis with some of the clichéd lines about priests that we have seen far too often from him. He seems to think it is the pinnacle of wit to say that “the outpouring of grief” for the pope has led to priests asking altar boys to “just hold me.”
Continuing this theme, later while Maher was trying to explain why conservatives had disagreements with Pope Francis, he ran through a litany of things that supposedly conservatives found infuriating about the late-Holy Father. One thing that supposedly got the goat of conservatives, according to Maher, was Pope Francis’ “child sex ring took the focus off Hillary’s child sex ring.”
What really stood out on Maher’s list were his loutish remarks about the Eucharist. Maher went on to say that another thing that Pope Francis did to raise the ire of conservatives was that he advocated for “men eating another man’s body.” At that exact moment, on screen appeared an image of Pope Francis consecrating the Eucharist.
To take a sacrament and a core pillar of Catholicism and turn it into some sort of sick, sexualized “joke” is grotesque, but to provide such an insult at the moment 1.4 billion Catholics around the world are commemorating the death of Pope Francis is beyond the pale.
Maher is an irreverent bigot who has not been funny in years. As his star continues to diminish, he is forced to rely on mean-spirited attacks to get cheap chuckles from the handful of people who still find him interesting.
Contact Maher’s director of media relations: [email protected]
What happens when an organization achieves its goal? It either folds or it develops a new one. The March of Dimes was founded to cure polio, and when the Salk vaccine proved effective, those who worked there could have declared victory and packed up their bags and left. But they didn’t. Instead, they chose a new mission: combating birth defects and infant mortality.
When it comes to civil rights organizations, this situation is much trickier.
Prejudice and discrimination exist in many quarters of America. People are still treated unfairly on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, sex, age, disability, and the like, but in almost every instance there has been much progress. A related, though separate, issue is the perception of progress. It is entirely possible for people of one demographic group or another to feel they are still treated unfairly when objective measures prove otherwise.
The progress made by minorities and women—in every aspect of society—is undeniably impressive. So much so that organizations founded to protect their civil rights have often experienced mission creep. Flush with money, they find themselves treading into new territories, seeking to address the latest civil rights issue. It helps enormously when big bucks are involved.
A case in point is the discovery of LGBT rights by organizations that were never founded—even remotely—to deal with this issue. But the fact that they are spending so much more time addressing the gay and transgender agenda is a sign that they have made tremendous progress in achieving their original goal. But they will never admit it. Victim advocates need victims.
For a majority of these groups, their shift to LGBT issues began in the late 2000s and early 2010s. At this point, the issue of gay rights, particularly marriage equality, was beginning to become a major civil rights issue. Soon the issue of transgender rights took center stage.
The following organizations have drifted into the LGBT arena. They are listed chronological in terms of when they embraced gay and transgender rights.
NAACP Legal Defense Fund
Year founded: 1940
Original mission: To secure laws that advance racial equality.
First mention of LGBT advocacy: 1990s.
Actions taken: Starting in 1996, it filed amicus briefs in cases that affected the rights of lesbians and gay men. It later fought for marriage equality.
Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights
Year founded: 1950
Original mission: The Conference’s original mission was “grounded in commitment to social justice and the firm conviction that the struggle for civil rights would be won not by one group, but through coalition.” It focused mostly on civil rights for African Americans.
First mention of LGBT advocacy: 2003
Actions taken: Its first foray defending LGBT rights came in 2003 when it applauded the Supreme Court’s decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which offered new rights for gays and lesbians.
NAACP
Year founded: 1909
Original mission: To fight for racial equality.
First mention of LGBT advocacy: 2008
Actions taken: In 2008 the NAACP’s California state chapter opposed the state’s Proposition 8. It later defended marriage equality.
National Urban League
Year founded: 1910
Original mission: To fight for racial equality.
First mention of LGBT advocacy: 2009
Actions taken: Its first goal was to fight for the Hate Crimes Prevention Act.
ADL
Year founded: 1913
Original mission: To combat anti-Semitism.
First mention of LGBT advocacy: 2010
Actions taken: It filed an amicus brief in a marriage equality case.
National Women’s Law Center
Year founded: 1972
Original mission: To fight for the rights of women.
First mention of LGBT advocacy: 2012
Actions taken: In October 2012, it released a fact sheet on Title IX protections for LGBT and gender non-conforming students. It later became more active in combating discrimination.
The Ruth Bader Ginsburg Center for Liberty at the ACLU
Year founded: In 1972, Ruth Bader Ginsburg founded the Women’s Rights Project at the ACLU. In 2010, the Center for Liberty, which included the Women’s Rights Project, was established. In 2020, the Center was renamed the Ruth Bader Ginsburg Center for Liberty.
Original mission: To fight for women’s rights, principally abortion rights. It has since taken up the cause of gay and transgender people.
First mention of LGBT advocacy: 2015
Actions taken: To fight for passage of the Equality Act.
It is one thing for sister organizations to form coalitions; it is quite another when they engage in mission creep. But when there isn’t enough work for employees to do, they must find new avenues to explore. Add to this the lure of foundation money, and the temptation is irresistible.
One more thing. Notice none of these left-wing civil rights organizations ever experience mission creep by taking up the cause of anti-Catholicism. That is not a civil rights issue that exercises them.
Here’s a thought experiment.
There are two teachers. One is known for his compassion for struggling students, but he is not a gifted teacher, and as a result his students do poorly in school. The other is known as lacking in compassion, but he is a gifted teacher, and as a result his students do well in school.
There are two doctors. One is known for his compassionate bedside manners, but he is not a gifted doctor, and as a result his patients suffer. The other lacks bedside manners, but is regarded as a gifted doctor, and as a result his patients thrive.
Ideally, we would all like to be served by compassionate and competent teachers and doctors, but when given the choices afforded by the thought experiment, who would really choose the compassionate yet incompetent teacher or doctor over their insensitive yet competent counterparts?
No one doubts that Pope Francis showed great compassion for the poor. Indeed, that is one of the most heralded aspects of his legacy. But his harsh criticisms of capitalism, and his affinity for socialism, must be taken into account.
It is undeniably true that capitalism has done more to induce upward social mobility and alleviate poverty than any economic system in history. It is also undeniably true that socialism has proven to be the greatest generator of poverty in the world.
In capitalist countries, the leaders may talk more about economic efficiency than the interests of the poor, yet their free market policies invariably prove beneficial to them. The leaders in socialist countries talk a great deal about the interests of the poor, yet their statist policies invariably prove harmful to the poor.
In short, rhetoric means little in the end if the policies that are pursued result in failure.
When Mao took over in 1949, he dressed like a peasant and talked incessantly about the plight of the poor. Meanwhile, he owned 50 villas, and devastated the economy with his socialist policies.
When Fidel Castro, an affluent lawyer, took over in Cuba in 1959, he dressed down and talked incessantly about the plight of the poor. Meanwhile, he lived the high life and devastated the economy with his socialist policies.
When the Sandinistas took over in Nicaragua in 1979, they donned fatigues and talked incessantly about the plight of the poor. Meanwhile, they live in palaces and have devastated the economy with their socialist policies.
When Nicholás Maduro took over in Venezuela in 2019, he talked incessantly about the plight of the poor. Meanwhile, he is living a luxurious lifestyle and has devastated the economy with his socialist policies.
Pope Francis meant well in showing compassion for the poor. But his understanding of economics was not his strong suit, and the economic policies he championed did more to punish the poor than help them. On that score, the next pope has to do better.
“In creating men ‘male and female,’ God gives man and woman an equal personal dignity.” That is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches. Pope Francis not only agreed with this fundamental Catholic tenet, he said that those who deny there are only two sexes, male and female, are fostering a false anthropology.
Evidently, the German bishops disagree. Indeed, they also disagree with Pope Francis’ proclamations on gender ideology, which he called “demonic.”
In a special handout prepared by the German Bishops’ Conference that was recently published, the bishops made clear their vision of humanity. Indeed, the title of their document, “Blessings for Couples Who Love Each Other,” says it all.
“Couples who love each other” obviously applies to same-sex couples. Indeed, it also applies to father-daughter and mother-son couples. That may not be their intent, but this is what happens when being “inclusive” becomes an obsession.
It gets worse. The handout speaks to extending blessings to “couples in all the diversity of sexual orientations and gender identities [that] are part of our society.”
This means there is a sexual orientation that extends beyond heterosexual and homosexual. The German bishops should tell us what it is. It also means there are more than two gender identities. They should name them. In both instances, it would be helpful if they provided us with pictures of these people so we know what they look like.
In all seriousness, the dissemination of this handout comes at a critical juncture in the Church’s history. We are on the cusp of electing a new pope, and Catholics everywhere are anxious to know what direction the voting cardinals want to take us.
Will they ratify the African Catholic vision of sexuality, which emphasizes fidelity to the Church’s teachings? Or will they opt to ratify the German Catholic vision, which rejects those teachings?
There is a reason why Catholic attendance in Germany is abysmal. In a vain attempt to be “inclusive,” the bishops’ conference has unwittingly alienated orthodox Catholics, making them feel excluded. By contrast, Catholic attendance in most parts of Africa is surging, and that is due in no small way to its embrace of traditionalism.
Bishops who are prepared to believe there are a multiplicity of sexual orientations and gender identities are not only rejecting the teachings of the Catholic Church, they are rejecting what science affirms. Moreover, they are driving the faithful to exit the Catholic Church. Strike three.
Bill Donohue shares his thoughts and reflections on the life and legacy of the late Pope Francis and how his down to earth persona shaped the tenor of his entire papacy. To watch, click here.