Bill Donohue

Young people get bits of information from the Internet; urbanites pick up free newspapers stuffed with short stories; others rely on snippets of news from radio or TV; millions depend on wire service stories in their hometown newspapers; and a slim minority are able to access in-depth articles in newspapers and magazines. So when any person or institution is being hammered night after night, a negative impression is bound to  stick, independent of whether the “facts” are really facts. Such is the case with the recent wave of media attacks on the pope.

NewsBusters.com keeps a close eye on the media, and the day after Laurie Goodstein of the New York Times ran her piece on Fr. Lawrence Murphy, the Wisconsin priest who molested deaf boys extending back to the 1950s, it disclosed that critics of the Church outnumbered defenders by a margin of 13-1 on ABC, CBS and NBC. A few weeks later, the Media Research Center found that 69 percent of the 26 news stories carried by the three networks featured reports that presumed papal guilt.

Given these two factors—the limited amount of hard news consumed by most people these days, and the clear media bias against the Catholic Church—it is hardly surprising to learn that the pope’s “Poor” ratings on handling the abuse scandal literally doubled between 2008 and 2010. However, a month later, it appeared that a backlash had set in, at least among Catholics.

In a New York Times poll taken in late April and early May, the pope’s favorability rating among Catholics had jumped from 27 percent at the end of March (when the abuse stories were just getting started) to 43 percent. The evidence that this was due to a backlash against the media is supported by the finding that 64 percent of Catholics said the media had been harder on the Catholic Church than on other religions; almost half said the abuse stories were blown out of proportion.

The backlash was warranted. Not only that, but much of what was being reported was simply not true, though the misinformation was often passed on as if it were factual. Let’s just take one of the more famous untrue “facts” that have been floated at the expense of the pope, namely, the one that contends that the abuse scandal is widening under the tenure of Pope Benedict XVI. This claim was made by Roland Martin on CNN, as well as by many other commentators.

The real fact of the matter is that, as the John Jay College of Criminal Justice landmark study of 2004 showed, the vast majority of the abuse occurred between the mid-1960s and the mid-1980s. Now it is true that we did not hear much about this problem during that time, but it is nonetheless true that by the time the Boston Globe exposed the Boston Archdiocese in 2002, most of the worst of the scandal was behind us. Fast forward to 2010 and what we have now is nothing but a media-driven scandal: the cases recently trotted out go back a half century or more.

The impression that the scandal is widening is also contradicted by the latest report on this issue. Between 2008 and 2009, exactly six credible allegations were made against over 40,000 priests. There is no organization in the world—never mind the United States—that could  match this record. Just as important, there is no other institution that is having its old dirty laundry hung out for everyone to see.

If the media were to launch an investigation of Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, public school teachers, camp counselors, psychologists and psychiatrists (to say nothing of stepfathers, boyfriends and other “partners”) then, yes, it’s okay to include Catholics. But when only one group is targeted, and every other one gets a pass, then those who belong to this entity have every right to scream “Witch-Hunt.” In this case, the more apt term would be Papal Witch-Hunt.

The irony is that Pope Benedict XVI has done infinitely more to correct the abuse problem than Pope John Paul II did. It was Benedict who pressed for investigations of priests who had previously escaped an inquiry. It was he who put into place procedures of a more punitive sort. It was he who spoke of the “filth” within the Church. It was he who reopened the case of Father Marcial Maciel Degollado, and is now about to render another judgment on the order he founded, the Legionaries of Christ. It was he who met with the victims. All considered, this is not so much an irony as it is an injustice: Pope Benedict has done much to improve conditions.

One of the most important reforms ushered in by Pope Benedict was the decision to raise the bar on practicing homosexuals. While homosexual men are not per se barred from the seminaries, those who have been gay activists, or are practicing, are. And because the overwhelming majority of victims have been post-pubescent males, the more difficult it is for homosexuals to enter the priesthood, the more likely it is that sexual abuse will continue to decline.

As for the Fr. Murphy case, the evidence shows that the pope was never personally involved. Yet this didn’t stop Philip Pullella of Reuters from writing that “The New York Times reported the Vatican and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict, were warned about Murphy but he was not defrocked.” However, Laurie Goodstein of theTimes never said that the pope was personally aware of the Murphy case, and Father Thomas Brundage, the judge in the trial, has said that the pope’s name never came up in discussions in Milwaukee,  Washington or Rome.

Just as bad is Cal Thomas, the evangelical writer and activist. He wrote a seriously flawed piece, one that asserted that “The trial was never held.” One wonders whether anyone fact checks his articles. It must be pointed out that the Vatican could have dropped the case (as the civil authorities did in the 1970s), citing the fact that the statute of limitations had expired. But it didn’t.

It was the Murphy case that got the whole media-driven scandal started. And it was not by accident when it happened. On Sunday,  March 21, the House passed the health care bill. On Tuesday, March 23, President Obama signed it into law. On Thursday, March 25, the Goodstein piece on Murphy appeared in the Times. What am I getting at?

Health care had dominated the news for weeks in the run-up to the House vote. Now no newspaper that is sitting on what it believes is a major story wants to compete with an issue that literally overwhelms the news. So two days after Obama signed the bill into law, it was safe to pull the trigger. And it worked—the Murphy story took the lead, eclipsing all other news stories. As an added bonus, the following week was Holy Week, guaranteeing massive media coverage of the unfolding scandal.

Those who think this was just a coincidence, think again. On the day the Murphy story broke, protesters from SNAP, the professional victims’ group that thrives on scandals, were seen on TV demonstrating in Rome. Was it just a coincidence that they happened to be there? Did they travel to Rome for a pasta special?

So who tipped them off? Jeffrey Anderson. Anderson is the maniacal Catholic-hating attorney who has made an estimated one hundred million dollars suing the Catholic Church (in 2002, he admitted to making $60 million, but he refuses to say how much more he has made in the last eight years). In any event, it was Anderson who fed Goodstein the information for her story on Murphy. How do I know this? Because on CNN she admitted it. Here is what she said an attorney working on this case told her: “I have some interesting documents I think you might want to look at.” Though she does not identify the attorney, this was Anderson’s case.

Back to SNAP. How do we know it was Anderson who tipped them off? Because he is their principal benefactor. Several years ago, Forbes magazine disclosed that Anderson regularly greases SNAP.

See the connection? Anderson, motivated by hatred and greed, goes after the Catholic Church, and he, in turn, gives critical documents to Goodstein, knowing the New York Times would love to nail the Church; and then he gives the heads up to his radical clients, SNAP, who travel to Rome just in time to appear before the TV cameras when the story breaks on March 25.

What is driving Anderson, the Times and SNAP? Anderson’s daughter was once molested by a psychologist who happened to be a former priest. So why doesn’t he sue the American Psychological Association? Because there’s much more money, and fun, to be had sticking it to the Catholic Church. As for the Times, as I said in the op-ed ad I wrote on this subject, it hates the Church’s teachings on abortion, gay marriage and women’s ordination so much that it delights in bashing Catholicism. SNAP is fueled by revenge and money: the activists will go to their grave screaming “it’s payback time”; and because they have no other stable job, they thrive on lawsuits and the kick-backs they effectively get from steeple-chasing lawyers.

Another vicious lie is the one that maintains that the Catholic Church handled these abuse cases in a manner that was very different from the way others handled them. Nonsense. Back when the scandal was flourishing, in the 1970s, everyone knew what the drill was: whether the accused was a priest, rabbi, minister, public school teacher, counselor—whomever it was—he was immediately put in therapy. Then, upon a clean bill of health, he was returned to his job.

Was this wrong? In many cases it was. Who pushed for this? Ironically, many of those in the same liberal circles who are now pointing fingers. Back then it was chic to have an analyst, and there wasn’t any psychological or emotional malady that the therapists couldn’t cure. Or so they thought. Indeed, had a bishop sidestepped his advisors—some of whom acted more like therapeutic gurus—and decided to throw the book at the accused, he would have been branded as heartless and un-Christian by the Dr. Feelgood types. So for many of them now to get on their high horse saying there was a cover-up, when in fact what happened was the decision to conform to the prevailing zeitgeist—as understood and promoted by liberals—is sickening.

When the Murphy report on the situation in Dublin was released, one of the major conclusions was that if the bishops had followed canon law, instead of recommending therapy, the scandal may have been avoided. Sadly, this is true.

Yes, big mistakes were made, but the advice and the strategies employed in the Catholic Church were not any different than existed elsewhere. Moreover, all the news about the scandal today is not about new cases, it’s about old ones. So why is the Catholic Church being singled out? For the very reason the Catholic League was founded in 1973.

A shorter version of this article was posted on the Knights of Columbus website, Headline Bistro, on May 4.

New York Governor David Paterson will introduce a bill legalizing gay marriage tomorrow. Commenting on this is Catholic League president Bill Donohue:

“In a Quinnipiac poll taken two weeks ago, New Yorkers resoundingly rejected gay marriage by a margin of 59-41 percent; even a majority of Democrats don’t support it. So why is Governor Paterson trying to force feed legislation the people don’t want? Moreover, this is not just another bill before the people—this is a bill that would radically alter the most basic and important institution in the nation.

“Paterson has received bad advice on many matters, and that is why his poll numbers are at record lows. But this advice is the worst yet. If two guys can get married, on what principle can the state deny three guys? It can’t. Marriage is not for men or women: its function is to provide for procreation and the establishment of a family. Nature limits that function to a man and a woman, and society ought to ratify nature, not try to best it.

“For all the happy talk about inclusion, gay marriage is positively exclusionary in its effects. How so? Next month we will celebrate Mother’s Day. How do two men tell their legally acquired children that they are excluded from celebrating this special day? How do two women tell their legally acquired children that they are excluded from celebrating Father’s Day? One way to do it is to ban these special days, and that is exactly what has already happened in some gay-friendly schools in New York City.

“So not only will New Yorkers be force fed gay marriage, they can look forward to the time when the despots censor Mother’s Day and Father’s Day in the schools. All in the name of tolerance, of course.”

On April 16, New York Governor David Paterson introduced a bill legalizing gay marriage. We quickly noted that in a recent Quinnipiac poll, New Yorkers rejected gay marriage by a margin of 59-41 percent. So why is Paterson trying to force-feed legislation the people don’t want?

If two guys can get married, on what principle can the state deny three guys? It can’t. Marriage is not for men or women: its function is to provide for procreation and the establishment of a family. Nature limits that function to a man and a woman.

For all the happy talk about inclusion, gay marriage is exclusionary in its effects. How do two men tell their legally acquired children that they are excluded from celebrating Mother’s Day? How do two women tell their legally acquired children that they are excluded from celebrating Father’s Day? One way to do it is to ban these special days, and that is exactly what has already happened at some gay-friendly schools in New York City.

So not only will New Yorkers be force fed gay marriage, they can look forward to the time when the despots censor Mother’s Day and Father’s Day in the schools.

Pope Bashing

January 30 – February 4Following Pope Benedict XVI’s decision to reach out to the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), a controversy erupted due to the media’sdistortion of the story. After it was announced that the pope was seeking reconciliation with SSPX, news reports surfaced that the pope had welcomed back a Holocaust-denying bishop, Richard Williamson.

The facts of the matter were that the pope had lifted the excommunication that had been imposed in 1988 on four bishops of SSPX, one of them being Williamson who entertains discredited views on the Holocaust. We noted that none of the four bishops were fully reinstated in the Catholic Church. As accurately reported in the New York Times, this was merely “a step toward the men’s full restoration to the church, but their status has yet to be determined.” (Emphasis added.)

Of the outreach to SSPX, Pope Benedict XVI said, “I hope my gesture is followed by the hoped-for commitment on their part to take the further steps necessary to realize full communion with the Church, thus witnessing true fidelity, and true recognition of the magesterium and the authority of the pope and of the Second Vatican Council.”

None of the media distortions of this issue excused how those in the Jewish community lashed out at the pope. And none of the distortions excused the actions of nearly 50 Catholic Democratic members of Congress; they sent a letter to the Holy Father stating their concerns over Bishop Williamson’s comments questioning the Holocaust. In their letter they implored the pope to denounce Williamson’s views.

The letter smacked of posturing and hypocrisy, and was factually wrong. They began by saying, “We are writing to express our deep concerns with your decision to reinstate Bishop Richard Williamson to communion with the Catholic Church….” The fact is that the pope did not reinstate the bishop to communion with the Church. In other words, the letter was based on a false premise. For American congressmen to lecture the pope about an event in which he was personally victimized, and which he has long condemned, was nothing short of arrogant.

They begged the pope to “publicly state [his] unequivocal position on this matter so that it is clear where the Church stands….” How ironic, we thought, that most of these very same Catholics fail to speak with clarity about what the Church teaches on abortion. Of the 47 signatories, the majority have a 100 percent NARAL score.

On February 4, we responded to the attacks launched against the pope by the Germans. We said when it came to the flap the pope received over the controversy, “No one has been worse than the Germans.” German Chancellor Angela Merkel told the pope that he needed to clarify his views on the Holocaust. Did she forget that the pope, as a young man, was forcibly conscripted into a Nazi group and saw his family suffer economically because he refused to attend Hitler Youth meetings?

While Williamson’s views have been discredited, it did not excuse the grand-standing of the Regensburg District Attorney who investigated whether or not the bishop broke German law by denying the Holocaust—even though his comments were made in Sweden. Then there was the German press that completely exploited the issue: one major story said the pope had previously offended “Muslims, women, native Indians, Poles, gays and scientists.” The most embarrassing was the left-wing Catholic theologian Hermann Haering who implored that the Holy Father quit.

March 17
While flying to Cameroon, Pope Benedict XVI was asked about the Church’s position on fighting AIDS. The Holy Father responded, in part, “One cannot overcome the problem with the distribution of condoms. On the contrary, they increase the problem.” Despite the uproar his statement caused, the pope is supported by the facts.

The following comments were found on the websites of Democratic Underground, Queerty, Towleroad, the Human Rights Campaign and the Washington Post/Newsweek blog, “On Faith,” in response to the pope’s comments on condoms. All comments appear in their original form:

Hate Speech

• “Hey, what do you expect from the head of the church that brought us the Inquisition, pedophile priests, and demands for belief in a geocentric university?”

• “Righteous arrogance is always sickening. Benedict XVI is steeped in righteous arrogance. The man who presided over the child of the Inquisition (Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith) knows nothing about the people he lauds or condemns.”

• “I’m a Catholic and I also believe in virtually nothing the Catholic Church teaches. Therefore I’d be all for impeaching the Pope and replacing him with someone who knows what in the hell he — or she — is doing. But why stop there? Nobody is irreplaceable if you know what I mean.”

• “Where do we send the dead bodies of African AIDS victims? To the Vatican…?”

• “The man is head of one of the largest corporate entities in the world. Lets have him do something other than spread guilt and suffering.”

• “while we are at it, lets ban all organized religions or put them all in one place so that they can kill each other. They are all corporations. no different than AIG, designed to intimidate and cheat innocent people. They should be all taxed. None of them are the true representaions of what original prophets and God meant them to be.”

• “The pope doesn’t like condoms because he looses sensations when he has his p****r in little boys bums.”

• “As head of the Roman Catholic church the Pope is responsible for providing new membership in his church which is why contraception is forbidden. More babies equals more souls for the church, simple math.”

• “This religion is a joke! But beyond that, this particular pope is an evil Nazi and HE MUST GO.”

• “The idea of a POPE in the twenty-first century is demeaning to the civilized world. In addition, a man with no real life experience of ordinary people being considered as a leader is just disgusting. This man and his predecessors have caused more misery in this world than all the dictators and tyrants combined. People who worship this man and considered him their spiritual adviser need brain transplants.”

• “HIV is a serious problem everywhere.Africa surly doesn’t need words of wisdom from a hypocrite.Lets get started Impeach !!!”

• “The Pope is an a**hole.”

• “Denial of the Holocaust is illegal in some countries. Perhaps claiming condom use does not protect against HIV/Aids should be regarded as Contraception Denial.”

• “This makes it perfectly clear that a celibate male cannot run a church. His mind is warped by his myopic view of the world. He obviously does not care about his congregants, esp. the women. As a man of the cloth, his grasp on reality is gone. He is probably suffering from dementia & his celibate Vatican handlers have kept it from us.”

• “Of course, the Pope IS a complete nutter, just as is anyone who bases his/her existence on beliefs in sky-gods, devils, virgin births, praying to dead people, and assorted other craziness.”

• “Y’all can argue the finer points of Catholicism all you want; the greater truth is all about control, control of the greater population, but particularly the control of women.”

• “Whatta Pope! Once a Nazi, Always Nazi! ‘The Final Solution’ apparently lives on this Old Youth Nazi.”

• “If the Pope is motivated by God, then his God is evil! How dare this evil Pope condemn these suffering people to a hell on earth by his insidious religion!”

• “Yet ANOTHER way in which the Catholic Church has done more harm than good… not a huge surprise from the people who brought you the Spanish Inquisition and Vatican-approved child molestation. Who better than an elderly celibate ex-Hitler Youth to understand the needs of Sub-Saharan Africa, right?”

• “if this p.o.s. is god’s representative on earth, then all is lost, and there is no god worth respecting.”

• “this pope is a despot and should be not only impeached, but excommunicated for all of his lies and hypocrisies.”

• “If the Catholics can’t impeach the Pope, let them do away with him as a courtesy to the rest of the society.”

• “I AM a Catholic. I do NOT agree with much that the Prada pump wearing prick in Rome says or does. He means NOTHING to me or to most Catholics in the USA. He is a EVIL man& has been for years he can excommunicate if he has the balls to but I am sure he is too busy playing with the ‘boys’ to do that.”

• “The Catholics have been stupid enough to pay for this man’s extracurricular activities; it is their responsibility to deal with him. May be he got HIV after using condom and his experience may be what he is talking about.”

• “More immorality, deceit, fraud, torture, abuse, war, destruction, and death has been perpetrated over the Millenia by the Catholic Church than any other organized religion there has ever been.”  • “I have a picture of Benedict as a Hitler Youth giving the heil hitler salute-hated gays then now he has power-what an evil man.”

• “You expect morals from the leader of the largest child molester organization in the world?”

• “While ‘f*** the pope’ is a phrase that lilts off the tongue so pleasingly, let us not forget that his power derives from many sources, not the least of which are the myriad people like my family, all of whom are varyingly supportive of me and my same-sex husband, and also regularly attend mass, go to confession, receive communion, and ‘just love that mumbo-jumbo.’”

• “Any man that sets thier self up as God or say that they are a spokeman for God has a mental problem.”

• “Hmmm, and it was the ‘divine responsibility’ of Popes to murder thousands of men, women, and children over the years to support the superstition of the ‘church’.”

• “He, himself, is a closeted gay. Believe it or not, the fierce opponent of gays, usually they are gays in denial.”

• “I’ve long suspected that the ultimate destruction of the Catholic Church was his secret goal. It would be a good thing, I only wish it weren’t taking so damn long – and I hate the fact that so many people will have to die in such a horrible way before this institution of inhumanity is rendered null and void. On the other hand, I agree with His A**holiness that ‘a responsible and moral attitude toward sex would help fight the disease’. Unfortunately, the Catholic Church’s attitude toward sex is neither responsible nor moral.”

• “Yep, handcuff him and make him attend sex education classes like all the rest of the teen population.”

• “I thought the Popes had to have some kind of intelligence to get the position…? This guy is a f***ing idiot. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: F*** THE POPE!!!”

• “He’s just bringing the Final Solution into the 21st century, focused on all those darkies in Africa and DC.”

• “will somebody drop an acme anvil on this d*****bag already?”

• “Should we all be surprised to hear Nazi spouting hate coming from a  former  member of the Nazi Party”

• “I think the Pope and the arch Conservative Catholic Church are guilty in the deaths of millions across the globe. They spend hundreds of millions of dollars on medical care for AIDS treatment, but refuse to lift the ban of a 25 cent piece of plastic.”

• “NAZI BASTARD. He needs to hook up with Ted Haggard”

• “Why does the Church persist in such a manifestly immoral doctrine? One SUSPECTS that it must be the usual twisted thinking about sex and women.”

• “As a christian this guy embarrasses me he is a moron and he is creepy looking. Pope John Paul was such a sweet looking old man.”

• “Organized religion has done nothing but cause strife in humanity. Wars, discrimination, hatred in the name of ‘our father’ and pure ignorance. People need to start thinking for themselves. Throw organized religion to the curb.”

• “The popes comments represent nothing more than criminal stupidity.”

April 4
The following is part of atheist author Susan Jacoby’s answer to a question asked by the Washington Post/Newsweek blog, “On Faith”:

Question: “Pope Benedict XVI has offered a number of apologies recently, for clergy sex abuse, for promoting a Holocaust denier, for statements about Islam. What does it mean that a Pope has started doing that? Should those apologies be accepted? Should more religious leaders do that?”

Jacoby: “When the Pope apologizes for anything, his statement generally signifies nothing more than an attempt at damage control in the wake of an unanticipated public relations disaster created by his church and his church’s actions…Religious authorities ought to burn in hell, if there were a hell, for hypocritical apologies composed of words rather than deeds. There could surely be no better place for church leaders who believe in forcing a nine-year-old to bear the children of her rapist.”

May 11 – 15
As expected, Pope Benedict XVI’s trip to the Holy Land did not run as smoothly as we would have hoped. The Holy Father was criticized for his past—albeit forced—membership in the Hitler Youth. Also, his moving and heartfelt speech at the Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial was criticized for being too soft.

The English and French news services, Reuters and AFP, flatly said that the pope “was a member of the Hitler Youth.” The U.K.’s TimesOnline wrote that he “was in the Hitler Youth and enlisted with the Wehrmacht,” noting that “he had the excuse that this was standard practice for young German men at the time.” Israel Today magazine said many Israelis interpreted the pope’s visit to the Holocaust Memorial “as a stunt to cover up his past as a member of the Hitler Youth movement during World War II.” The Associated Press mentioned that, “Benedict says he was coerced.” Similarly, CBS reported that “Benedict has said he was coerced.”

All of this was a despicable smear. The New York Times got it right when it said that the pope “was forced into the Hitler Youth and the German Army in World War II.” Bloomberg.com also got it right when it noted “the German pope’s obligatory membership as a 14-year-old in Hitler Youth”; it said further that he “didn’t attend meetings and he later deserted when he was drafted into the German army.” Moreover, his failure to attend Hitler Youth meetings brought economic hardship to his family: it meant no discounts for school tuition. None of this was a stunt. Furthermore, no one can deny that he was coerced into doing what the Nazis demanded of young men at the time.

We noted that even Bill Maher apologized when we blasted him for accusing the pope of being a Nazi and said that the guilty media should do likewise and correct the record.

After the Holy Father spoke at Yad Vashem, the chairman of the Directorate, Avner Shalev, said that while the pope’s visit was “important,” he regretted that the pope never mentioned anti-Semitism or the Nazis. Rabbi Yisrael Meir Lau, chairman of the Yad Vashem Council and Tel Aviv’s chief rabbi, said the pope’s speech was “devoid of any compassion, any regret.” Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin accused the pope of not asking for “forgiveness,” noting that the pope’s (coerced) membership in the Hitler Youth means he carries “baggage.”

During his speech, the Holy Father said he had come “to stand in silence before this monument, erected to honor the memory of the millions of Jews killed in the horrific tragedy of the Shoah.” He also said, “May the names of these victims never perish! May their suffering never be denied, belittled or forgotten!” Unfortunately those words fell on deaf ears.

Following the pope’s visit to Yad Vashem, Palestinian leader Sheik Taysir Tamimi forced his way to the pulpit at an interreligious event asking the pope to fight for “a just peace for a Palestinian state and for Israel to stop killing women and children and destroying mosques as she did in Gaza”; he asked the pope to “pressure the Israeli government to stop its aggression against the Palestinian people.”

The Vatican quickly condemned Sheik Tamimi’s hate speech, as it should have. Where were all the Muslim leaders condemning it? There is a time and a place for everything—and this was wrong on both counts. To exploit the pope’s journey for peace by beckoning him to bash Jews shows how utterly futile it is to have an interreligious meeting with some people.

July 7
Cathy Lynn Grossman of USA Today wrote an article on Pope Benedict XVI’s call for a God-centered global economy. We thought the pope’s comments would be embraced by every reasonable person, regardless of faith. We were wrong. Here is a sample of the vitriol that was unleashed against the pope in the “Comments” section following Grossman’s article. All selections are exactly as they appeared:

Hate Speech

• “If the Catholic right is against the redistribution of wealth, they’re against the pope.”

• “Let the Pope be the first to follow his own advice. The Catholic Church is one of the wealthiest entities on the planet. How about the Church giving its tithe from all its members and redistributing it to the poor instead of filling its coffers. How about the Vatican selling off its billions of dollars worth of art to feed the masses. The Pope should set the example.”

• “There is NO God, the bible is fake, the church is a scam.”

• “Bennie Baby, you want to help the world, tell all your third world followers (i.e. Mexico) to quit breeding like rabbits. It sure would help out here in California.”

• “Nazi pope still spreading lies huh?”

• “It is time for the Catholic church to put birth control and condoms in the back of every Catholic church. That is a good start for a ‘God centered’ global economy.”

• “The catholic church, wow, what a track record they have. They killed and tortured what they considered non-believers. They were implicit in the plan on exterminating Jews, they’ve been abusing children for centuries, even covering up for priests involved in such heinous acts and so now they want sensible people to take their advice on money:-)! What a bunch of nutters!”

• “Why is the Pope addressing humankind? Doesn’t he have a direct line to God? If he doesn’t, why does he think anyone should listen to what he has to say?”

• “This Pope was a friend of the Nazis.”

• “Christianity is like 2,000 year sold and this nutter acts like humans were lost for the thousands of years andgenerations until the catholic church came along with their raping of the local economy and holy wars,LOL!”

• “God centered. OMG!!! That’s rich, senior pope. Sure just have all paychecks directly deposited into the vaticans bank account, and they will cut a separate check to you depending on actual need. I’d pay just to shut this fool up for a year or two.”

• “Note to pope: Mind your own business and stay out of politics. If you want to help the world, start by quitting the collections during mass, sell your gold chalices and sell your massive display of power–your cathedral–and use the proceeds to help developing countries. Finally, ask for forgiveness for the brutal Crusades, and several inquisitions where you murdered thousands of people.”

• “The Catholic church has so much money they could probably fund an end to at least half the world’s hunger tomorrow (ever been to the Vatican?) Rome has a lot to answer for after decades of shaming people into not using birth control despite the fact that they are too poor to feed their babies and despite the resulting spread of HIV in places like Africa. I certainly hope the Pope’s ‘redistribution of wealth’ includes liquidation of some of the church’s assets to be distributed to the poverty stricken.”

• “Lets start a new inquisition and if your not a christian we throw you to the lions.”

• “What is this crackpot trying to do. I guess religion and in the name of god has not killed enough people already. You would think that by learning from the past these idiots would just keep thier mouths shut.”

• “This pope is disgusting and sickening.. He is a celebritie and he is not religious. I dont understand the catholic. No offense to catholic people but you have a right to know why Catholic is a FALSE religious. Read about 10 commandment being broken. They break GOD LAW!!!!!!! THEY DID!!!! ….”

• “Catholic is DISGUSTING.. Oh yeah.. the bible book never mention about Catholic or any religious.. The bible itsel fis just a GOD and the Word.. what religious am I, you ask ? No, none..”

December 24
During a procession before Mass on Christmas Eve, a woman jumped over a barrier and attacked Pope Benedict XVI, knocking him over during her charge. Fortunately, the Holy Father wasn’t injured. Following the attack, the Huffington Post ran a story on the event which was fair. The comments made by the readers, which followed the story, were hateful to say the least. For these people—most of whom wear their supposed goodwill on their sleeves—to say such things about an attack on the elderly pope is disgusting. The following quotes were taken directly from the Huffington Post;all quotes appear as they originally were:

Hate Speech

• “as a practicing Catholic I have to ask, Does anyone like this Pope? I Don’t.”

• “Women have a lot to be angry at this pope for, so, my guess is that it is a case of an overzealous political activist more than just an ‘unstable woman’.”

• “I regret that you’re too blind to see the church indeed is a bastion of homophobia, misogyny, and sexual backwardness (I don’t believe they’re holocaust deniers though). Their sanctimonious meddling in American politics is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to their obsolete thinking and brazen hypocrisy.”

• “I have great disrespect for the _Catholic church and it’s shameful actions both recently and in the distant past.”

• “I hope the gold cross or the gold chalice didn’t get chipped. The Vatican owns much art, gold, & real estate. If they sold items & used the money to feed children who are starving to death, I’d have more sympathy.”

• “It is amazing someone who used to be a Nazi and who accepts holocaust deniers into positions of authority into his church with open arms is so beloved by people.”

• “I think the Church has failed it’s mission and God’s jugement is at hand exposing all. Every eye shall see and every knee shall bow. There shall be a weeping and nashing of teeth. I Am coming burning like an oven and all shall be made stubble. The Messianic age is over. All mankind is the Chosen People.”

• “if the pope were a real christian he would sell the vatican, feed the poor and diminish human suffering.”

• “Ironic, isn’t it? The very symbol of wealth and power – the Vatican- is the home of the religious leaders who implore all of us to abandon all of OUR wealth and power to help the poor, and give $$ to this church, of course! I don’t think so!”

• “That’s what you get when you invent fake hierarchical positions of so-called ‘authority’ (like ‘pope’) to create artificial power discrepancies and lord over the people: you make yourself a target.”

• “mocking them is one way of letting others know that their religions is foolish, childlike, DANGEROUS AND DESTRUCTIVE.”

• “I am Catholic and I will say that if the Pope would stop harboring ped o phile priests maybe he would stop being mocked.”

• “I wonder if he scuffed his Prada slippers?”

• “No, but his outfit works tirelessly behind the scenes to make that sane sex laws and women’s reproductive rights are stifled and reversed.”

• “Perhaps she was one of the bazillion rape victims of Catholic Priests and just trying to strike back.”

• “Benedikt is a very controversial figure. He reversed many great achievement that JohnII made. I do not like the direction that he choses for the catholic church.”

• “The pope is just a MAN nothing more! his silly outfits are just that! Religion is the best tool ever invented for the con artist!”

• “Actually, the mentally unstable ones are the Pope, his entourage and all those who believe that he is god’s earthly representative.”

• “she was just playing Whack-a-Pope”

• “She was just upset that he showed up wearing the same dress she had on.”

• “what’s crazy is actually believing the man is anything other than a normal human being with a crazy hat…”

• “She doesn’t seem unstable to me – perfectly reasonable thing to do to a phony, if you ask me.”

• “I sorry I had to laugh when i saw the video.. the Pope has been complicite in sexual crimes committed agaist children.. so maybe this take down was just kharma because of his bad deeds….”

• “don’t get mad because I am telling the honest truth.. i guess a kicked dog will bark everytime.. the catholic church have been covering up deiviant sexual molestations on children for years…”

• “Maybe she was just paying him back for all the priests he let slide for so long.”

• “Not one bit, eh? Can’t speak for the others, but I’d say it might have to do with the total hypocrisy and overriding moral bankruptcy the Catholic Church has consistently displayed in protecting and ensuring the continual sexual abuse of the children entrusted to its care.”

• “There is no Biblical basis for a pope, or cardinals, or a papacy. or nuns, or the vatican, or celibacy, or Mary worship, or the mass. This is a false religion that preaches ‘another gospel.’”

• “He’s just another businessman and politician.”

• “Yeah. How many people are starving right now while he parades around like that? In the building?”

• “Anyone who deems themselves infallible is nuts.”

• “Gee, I wonder what anyone would have against the Catholic Church? Oh! Oh! I know. They looked the other way when priests violated innocent children? And made it official policy to cover it up?”

• “Well, let me ask you this. Half of Africa is infected with HIV, and the Pope recently stated that using condoms is worse than contracting HIV. Now, AIDS is a death sentence, particularly in parts of the world with no access to ARV drugs. The Pope has effectively condemned several million to die.”

• “How about giving up all that stolen gold for the hungry and homeless?”

• “The triIIion doIIar coffers of the catholic church sure couId go a Ioooong way in ending worId hunger, indeed. Of course, then who would pay for the pope’s elaborate wardrobe and prada shoes?”

• “What kind of religion teaches that it’s okay to use the homeless as pawns in political games intended to strip the citizens of a country your leadership has no jurisdiction over’s civil rights? Monsters, all of them”

• “The news report stated that someone was mentally unstable? Which one were they referring to, anyone know? Stay tuned at eleven.”

• “The decisions the Catholic Popes have made on behalf of women in the last century are such that women should bowl the b@st@rd over every day.”

• “They think the woman was mentally unstable for knocking down the pope? After centuries of the Catholic Church minimizing the rights of women, can you blame her? She’s fighting back for a change.”

• “Who made him the dictator of women?”

• “I think this was a woman who’s son was probably _molested by one of _Ratzy’s _priests and he just swept it under the rug, like they always do. And, Mr. Deutsche Pope, _Jesus was _Jewish.”

• “Didn’t this pope just shuffIe the pedofiIe pr!ests to another diocese after they were outed for moIesting aItar boys just like the last pope did? Unbelievable, eh?”

• ‘“The woman appeared to me mentally unstable.’ Ha! What about all those men in the medieval outfits?”

• “A symbolic act – a thank you for all the pope has done for womankind through the years…”

• “Shoving them in abusive orphanages and convents (in Ireland, esp. heinous), denying birth controI so that AIDS kept spreading in Africa; kicking nuns out of their manse so it couId be soId to pay the legal fees of a ped0phiIe pr!est…..”

• “Mentally unstable? Sounds to me that she had her wits about her.”

JEWS DIVIDED ON POPE’S OUTREACH TO SSPX

In response to the reaction to the Bishop Williamson controversy, on February 2, Rabbi Irwin Kula wrote the following article, “Jewish Reaction to Pope Disproportionate.” Rabbi Kula is president of the National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership. The following is his article. (See below for a sample of the hate-filled responses to this piece.)

The official Jewish response to Pope Benedict XVI’s recent decision to reach out to the St. Pius X Society and to revoke the excommunication (though not yet determining the status) of four bishops says a great deal about the psycho-social state of American Jewish leadership or at least the leadership that claims to speak for American Jews.

The admittedly unnerving if not hurtful Holocaust denying views of one of those bishops, British born Richard Williamson, an obscure, irrelevant, cranky old man, offered on Swedish television, evoked the wrath of many Jewish organizations. This will have “serious implications for Catholic-Jewish relations” and there will be a “political cost for the Vatican” they threatened. And from Israel, the Chief Rabbinate in Israel, one of the most corrupt religious establishments in Western democracies, entered the fray calling into doubt the pope’s impending visit to Israel.

As an eighth generation rabbi and someone who lost much family in the Holocaust, it could just be me, but this official Jewish response seems outrageously over the top. Do millions of American Jews sufficiently care that the pope revoked the excommunication of this unheard of bishop such that major Jewish organizations should devote so much energy and attention to this and turn it into a cause célèbre worthy of front page attention? And is this the way we speak to each other after decades of successful interfaith work on improving our relationship?

How is it that the view of some cranky bishop who has no power evokes calls of a crisis in Catholic-Jewish relations despite the revolutionary changes in Church teachings regarding Jews since Vatican II? Where is the “proportionality,” where is the giving the benefit of the doubt—a central religious and spiritual imperative—in response to something that is admittedly upsetting but in the scheme of things is less than trivial especially given this pope’s historic visit to Auschwitz in which he unambiguously recognized the evil perpetrated upon Jews in the Holocaust and in his way “repented” for any contribution distorted Church teachings made to create the ground for such evil to erupt.

Something is off-kilter here. Is it possible that the leadership of Jewish defense agencies, people with the best of motivation who have historically done critical work in fighting anti-Semitism, have become so possessed by their roles as monitors of anti-Semitism, so haunted by unresolved fears, guilt, and even shame regarding the Holocaust, and perhaps so unconsciously driven by how these issues literally keep their institutions afloat, that they have become incapable of distinguishing between a bishop’s ridiculous, loopy, discredited views about the Holocaust and a Church from the Pope down which has clearly and repeatedly recognized the evil done to Jews in the Holocaust and called for that evil to never be forgotten?

Perhaps, this called for a little understanding of what it must be like to actually run a 1.2 billion person spiritual community (one with which I disagree on many issues) and to be trying to create some sense of unity from right to left, from extreme liberalism to extreme traditionalism. How about cutting a pope, who we know, along with the previous pope, is probably amongst the most historically sensitive popes to the issues of anti-Semitism, Holocaust, and the relationship to Judaism and Jews, a little slack, given how he is trying to heal his own community. And is it possible that the pope’s desire/hope/need to reintegrate the Church (he has also reached out to Liberal theologian Hans Kung) may be of more importance both to the Church and actually to religion on this planet than whether we Jews are upset about the lifting of excommunication of one irrelevant bishop?

Would we Jews like to be judged by the crankiest, most outlandish, hurtful, and stupid thing any rabbi in the world said about Catholics or Christians? We Jews are no longer organized to excommunicate and a rabbi can’t be defrocked the way the Church does with its clergy but surely there are individual rabbis who say things so abhorrent about the “other” that though we still call the person rabbi we would not want to be taken to task for doing so.

Finally, when the pope as well as key Vatican officials said within a day that Williamson’s views are “absolutely indefensible,” where was a little humility in response? Wouldn’t it have been interesting, yet alone ethically compelling, for those who initially lashed out to have acknowledged that perhaps they did overreact and that they do know that the Church and specifically this pope are very sensitive to these issues? But that we ask the pope and church hierarchy to please understand that, whether fully justified or not, we are still very very raw and very vulnerable regarding the Holocaust and so we are sorry if we did overreact and we are deeply grateful for the pope’s unambiguous reiteration of that which we do know is his view and is contemporary Catholic teachings.

Rabbi Kula’s article triggered a hate-filled reaction. Here is a sample. All comments appear in their original form:

Hate Speech

• “Your article is MOST curious. You, being a ‘man of the cloth’ of the Jewish religion (8th generation rabbi, no less), and having personally lost family members to the Holocaust, should, of ALL people, be expected to be at least a LITTLE empathetic towards the similar feelings of others.”

• “Instead of preaching down at others YOU ‘think’ are overreacting, since you DON’T understand the Roman Catholic community as much as you think you do, why don’t you stick to promoting tolerance in a less INSULTING, DEROGATORY, and snotty little attitude that certainly does not fit your position, nor your heritage.”

• “Nothing of what you say, btw, justifies the ongoing racism against and persecution of Jews by Christians. NOTHING.”

• “The root of the problem is the trial of Jesus.  Historically it did not happen. Jesus got a bit carried away at the Jewish temple. The Roman soldiers reacted in their moral fashion in dealing with agitators, they summarily crucified him.  No questions asked and definitely no trial.”

• “I AM NOT GOING TO DISCUSS THIS WITH YOU UNTIL YOU DISCOVER SOMETHING ABOUT THE GAY PEOPLE PERSECUTED AND KILLED DURING THE HOLOCAUST. YOU WERE GIVEN AN EXTENSIVE BIBLIOGRAPHY.”

• “I’m a pagan. I have nothing to ‘confess’ about either. If I weren’t Pagan, I wouldn’t have been going up against serious odds to get Christians off Jewish kids all my life, and being thanked for it by occasional grudging not mentioning how ‘unclean’ I am supposed to be.”

• “Will the Anti-Defamation League step up to the moral plate when the Vatican goes on another one of it’s rants about homosexuals or feminists?”

• “The VATiCAN should be defrocked or Abolished or Not Recognised by the ‘NEW-[Apocalyptic]United Nations’!”

• “Jesus was Jewish, yes, but he was not the son of any god.  He was apparently the illegitimate son (mamzer as per Professor Bruce Chilton) of Joseph and Mary. He trained under The Baptizer and made a good sermon although he was not literate. He got a bit carried away in the Jewish Temple, got arrested and summarily crucified by Roman troops who were ordered to deal with agitators quickly and without a trial.”

• “Believe it, Rabbi. Just scroll down. Catholics are not the best friends of Jews. Take it from an insider.”

• “According to Rabbi Irwin Kula Williamson is an ‘an obscure, irrelevant, cranky old man’ and he goes on to say ‘with no power’…Well… Rabbi Irwin Kula please carefully note this fact: so was Hitler, backed by Pope Pious XII. And in this case – as with Hitler – It is the Pope himself who is giving this obscure, irrelevant, cranky old man all the power-and relevance-he needs. This is precisely the point. Rabbi Irwin Kula, regrettably, missed it completely.”

• “The German Shepard is rounding up his stray sheep, and with some urgency.”

• “this Pope’s historic visit to Auschwitz in which he unambiguously recognized the evil perpetrated upon Jews in the Holocaust and in his way “repented” for any contribution distorted Church teachings made to create the ground for such evil to erupt.”

• “One visit to a camp is repentance for centuries of persecution (which directly led, aided or overlooked) by the Catholic Church?  This one visit by one pope – without any distinct acknowledgment of what exactly he is repenting for – or acknowledging any Nazi/catholic church collusion – this is what you call repentance?”

• “Rabbi Kula misses the point. It is not the mere rantings of a single crackpot that are at concern here, but a pattern of dismissiveness by the current Pontiff, including his reintroduction of the Prayer to Convert the Jews into the Catholic Mass.”

• “Rabbi Kula seems to ignore the rising tide of anti-semitism and anti-Jewish violence in the United States, Europe, and Turkey. Reinstating a an avowed anti-semite into a position of significant authority in the Catholic Church sends a powerful message of disrespect, if not hatred to our people. Wake up Rabbi.”

• “If I were Jewish this Pope would scare me out of my mind.”

• “The new Pope is by far more sectarian than the previous. His own views on the Holocaust are hardly more encouraging than outright Holocaust deniers. His denial that Christian sectarianism was a major factor in the Holocaust makes it hard to believe that he takes the dangers of his increased sectarianism seriously.”

• “This is time to be afraid, very very afraid.”

This is a special report which was originally published in the September 2014 issue of Catalyst. 

The Catholic Church has many enemies these days, some of whom are ex-Catholics who left the Church a long time ago. They are joined by the disaffected, those who pretend (even convincing themselves) that they are Catholics in good standing. Most of these malcontents are lay men and women, but some are priests, and a few are nuns. All of them are animated by a strong rejection of the Church’s teachings on sexuality. Because they have the support of the secular media, they comprise a formidable group.

What motivates them today is the debased desire to take down a bishop. Not any bishop: They want to drop a bishop who is an outspoken defender of the faith. They really get excited when they learn of a diocese that was riddled with dissidents and is now almost dissident free.

Geopolitics is at work, as well. While they will work overtime to disable a bishop anywhere in the nation, they prefer to scalp a bishop from the Mid-West. Why? Because that’s where many of them live. It’s also because it is easier for activists to dominate the news in mid-size cities, as opposed to larger ones where it is much more difficult. Their attacks are orchestrated and well-coordinated: lawyers feed the activists and they feed the media.

Cardinal Raymond Burke, formerly the Archbishop of St. Louis and now the prefect of the Vatican’s highest court, has drawn the enmity of Mid-Western dissidents for years. He is despised because of his denunciations of Catholic public figures who reject the Church’s teachings that bear on public policy issues. Burke’s critics have no problem with the Nancy Pelosis who continually claim their Catholic status while doing everything they can to undermine the Church. They have a problem with him.

New York Archbishop Timothy Cardinal Dolan hails from St. Louis and was the Milwaukee archbishop before coming to the Big Apple. He is hated because he cleaned up after his disgraced predecessor, Archbishop Rembert Weakland. Though Weakland embarrassed himself and the Church, he is still revered in left-wing Catholic quarters. He is liked because his views are similar to theirs.

They tried to take Dolan down because he moved the perpetual care fund, which was part of the regular archdiocesan accounts, to a cemetery trust fund. It did not matter that he was following the advice of his Financial Council; what mattered was that his enemies could play fast-and-loose with a contrived controversy. When Dolan moved to New York, they stayed on his trail. Terence McKiernan, the founder of BishopAccountability, pledged a few years ago to “stick it” to Dolan, and has accused him of “keeping the lid on 55 priests.” Several attempts by me challenging McKiernan to release the names have failed. It’s a lie and he knows it.

When Bishop John Myers of Peoria took over the Newark archdiocese, his enemies followed him. They went wild when it was learned that a priest was not being properly supervised after he had an encounter with a teenager 12 years earlier; he grabbed the boy while wrestling with him (in front of the boy’s mother). In fact, what was really bothering his critics were Myers’ strong positions on sexuality. The editorial page editor of the Newark Star-Ledger, an angry ex-Catholic, specifically took umbrage with Myers for his defense of “marriage and life.”

Bishop Robert Finn of Kansas City-St. Joseph inherited a mess made by dissidents and cleaned it up. That made him a target. His enemies seized on the antics of a disturbed priest who took crotch-shot pictures of kids. It is important to note that the review board was contacted, the authorities were notified, and an independent investigation was ordered. But because much more offensive photos were later taken, Finn was found guilty of one misdemeanor for not reporting suspected child abuse. Had he done nothing, no one would have known about the priest because there was no complainant. No matter, they wanted his head and are still after him.

St. Louis Archbishop Robert Carlson was recently the victim of a campaign by anti-Catholics who tried to frame him. Their goal was to promote the pernicious idea that he did not know that child abuse was against the law. It failed, but what counts is that they tried. Because Carlson fought back, and because he rejects the libertine ideas of his critics, they sought to bring him down.

No one has endured a more vicious assault on his character than John Nienstedt, Archbishop of St. Paul and Minneapolis. Before examining his case, it is time to disclose who the principal players are in this quest to scalp a bishop.

Attorney Jeffrey Anderson, the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests (SNAP), and the National Catholic Reporter are leading the charge. Anderson is from St. Paul, SNAP honcho David Clohessy lives in St. Louis, and the Reporter’s home is Kansas City, Missouri. All of them find a sympathetic ear with the media.

The Kansas City Star, the Minneapolis Star Tribune, and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch are their biggest fans. Outside of the Mid-West, they have friends at the New York Times, Boston Globe, National Public Radio and Commonweal magazine; the latter has become increasingly strident.

Anderson is a tiny man with a big ego. A recovering alcoholic, he once described himself as a “dedicated atheist.” His goal, he has admitted, is to “sue the s*** out of them” [the Catholic Church]. He has made good on his pledge; he is one of the richest lawyers in the nation. While he likes to sue Mid-Western bishops, the big prize for him remains the pope; several attempts to implicate the Vatican have failed.

In August, SNAP gave Anderson an award for his work. Or was it for his money? It is a matter of record that Anderson has lavishly greased Clohessy’s efforts. David Clohessy, who indicts bishops for not reporting the slightest boundary violation to the authorities, never called the cops when he learned that his brother, a priest, was accused of molesting a minor. He also admits to lying to the media, though that has cost him nothing.

Four years after the National Catholic Reporter was launched, it came under attack by its Ordinary, Bishop Charles Herman Helmsing, for its “poisonous character” and attacks on the Church. He said the paper had no right to claim the title “Catholic,” a view that is not uncommon among many bishops today. Indeed, some experts maintain that the use of “Catholic” in its title is canonically illicit. The Reporter does not support the Church’s teachings on sexuality, and it gives voice to those seeking to undermine the Church’s hierarchy.

These are the main protagonists in the war on bishops, and they are the ones who have Archbishop Nienstedt in their sights. Along with Minnesota Public Radio and other media outlets, their pursuit of a bishop’s scalp is so transparent that no objective observer could conclude otherwise.

Nienstedt got off on the wrong foot with these people when he took over from Bishop Raymond Lucker in New Ulm. He inherited a cadre of committed National Catholic Reporter types and moved with dispatch to restore order. There was much to clean up. Consider that Lucker wrote a book prodding the Church to change its teachings on 15 issues, including homosexuality. When he learned of a priest who had molested a minor, Father Francis Markey, Lucker moved him to another parish and school. Markey was a drug addict and a homosexual who preyed on teenage boys. By contrast, it took Nienstedt to discipline another miscreant priest soon after he took over from Lucker; he placed him on administrative leave without faculties.

Not surprisingly, Lucker liked the dissident priest character in the ABC-TV show “Nothing Sacred.” Indeed, he loved the show so much that he signed a newspaper ad in the late 1990s condemning me for boycotting the show’s sponsors. Bishop Thomas Gumbleton, who attends SNAP conferences, also signed the letter. Cardinal Roger Mahony also liked the show: He gave the actor who played Father Ray an award. No media outlet worshipped the show more than the Reporter. When we killed the show, a dissident Brooklyn nun held a prayer vigil commemorating her loss.

Bishop Lucker is relevant to the Nienstedt story because those out to get the archbishop never showed any interest in sacking his predecessor. As long as a bishop adopts the right positions, as defined by left-wing haters and angry ex-Catholics, he will get a pass, no matter what his record is. This is the real cover-up.

If there were two triggers that ignited the assault on Nienstedt it was his public defense of marriage, properly understood, and his criticism of the pro-homosexual film, “Brokeback Mountain.” Had he said nothing about a ballot initiative recognizing the right of two men to marry, and had he been equally agnostic on the gay cowboy movie, he never would have been targeted by the Church’s enemies.

It is against this backdrop that, out-of-the-blue, Nienstedt was accused of touching a boy’s behind when posing for a group photo; the archbishop stepped down and called for an investigation. No other leader, religious or secular, would ever do so. Of course, he was exonerated. Then came more accusations, dating back many years ago, that he engaged in improper behavior with seminarians and priests (an ex-priest surfaced charging that Nienstedt once touched his neck). Again, the archbishop called for a probe, this time hiring a respected law firm.

From my perspective, there were two disturbed priests, both homosexuals, who should have been treated differently; their acting out occurred before Nienstedt took over. Red flags were ignored, and in one case, the fact that the priest was a homosexual actually redounded to his favor (they didn’t want to out him). One of these two offending priests was permanently removed from ministry in the fall 2012, and the other was put on a leave of absence in the spring 2013 (he is not involved in ministry pending the completion of an investigation).

In October 2013, Nienstedt said, “There are no offending priests in active ministry in our archdiocese.” This was disputed by Jennifer Haselberger, a canon lawyer who resigned from the archdiocese earlier that year. As it turned out, Nienstedt did not lie, but neither was he accurate. He did not know that two priests who had been accused of “boundary violations” were still in ministry. Their inappropriate behavior was not criminal and did not involve sexual abuse. Still, their status became a source of controversy. Two months later they agreed to a leave of absence; this was subsequent to a review by a Los Angeles firm, hired by the archdiocese, to see if there were any active clergy members in ministry with allegations against them.

In 2014, Nienstedt learned of an accused priest who escaped supervision. Though the priest was told not to celebrate Mass, he occasionally did so on weekends. He retired in 1998, and was the subject of allegations made against him in the 1980s about inappropriate behavior dating back to the early 1960s. As soon as Archbishop Nienstedt found out about this priest’s violation of trust, he had his faculties removed.

These constitute missteps, but they hardly justify the hysterical reaction against Nienstedt that has taken place. Media reports would have us believe that Nienstedt was involved in a major cover-up of known child molesters. This is patently false and a disservice to a great man. No, his big sin is his orthodoxy, not his decision-making. It is he who has been victimized: anonymous accusers, angry former employees, and a cadre of militants, are out to level him.

Haselberger is the darling of Commonweal, Minnesota Public Radio, and SNAP; she spoke at the latter’s conference in August. It is a source of great irony that she was suspended by the archdiocese for failing to deal expeditiously with a complaint, yet her signature complaint against the archdiocese is that it didn’t move expeditiously to deal with accused priests.

Over the summer, Haselberger submitted an affidavit to Anderson claiming to have endured “months of harassment, threats, and intimidation”; she pledged to provide examples. In fact, she provided not a single example of being threatened by anyone, and the examples that she offered of being harassed and intimidated are so weak they only work to undermine her credibility. Moreover, even she admits to at least 17 occasions where her version of events differed with that of her co-workers.

A week before Haselberger gave her affidavit, Commonweal printed a lengthy article detailing what she told them: the archbishop was under investigation for inappropriate sexual conduct with seminarians and former priests. Nienstedt announced the investigation on the same day, July 1, claiming innocence. She leaked this information after having learned of it from the law firm that was conducting an investigation, a probe initiated by Nienstedt.

Exactly one week after  Haselberger’s uncontested affidavit was taken, Minnesota Public Radio aired a documentary that featured all the familiar players, complete with piped-in melodramatic music. For an outlet that prides itself on objectivity, it was nothing but a left-wing hit job. That teed things up for Anderson, who conveniently released Haselberger’s statement the next day. The day after that, Laurie Goodstein published her story in the New York Times, and two days later her newspaper published a scathing editorial on Nienstedt. On the same day, July 18, two journalists, one from the National Catholic Reporter, called for the archbishop to resign. This set the tone for Minnesota newspapers which then called for him to resign.

We decided to do a little investigating of our own: I asked the staff to research the internal policies that these media outlets have on employee misconduct, including violations of the law. A senior PR person from the Star Tribune initially got back to us saying we would hear from someone in the editorial office. But no one ever contacted us.

The St. Cloud Times is a Gannett paper, and the parent company has a policy on what to do when an employee learns of “violations of the law or Company policy.” It says nothing about reporting law violations to the authorities; all they need to do is report illegalities to their supervisor. The New York Times is the most shameless of them all.

The Times has a Business Ethics Policy that if adopted by the bishops would lead to calls for their mass resignation. “Any employee who becomes aware of any conduct that he or she believes to be prohibited by this Policy or a violation of the law…is expected to promptly report the facts forming the basis of that belief or knowledge to any supervisor of the legal department.” (My italics.) In other words, crimes of sexual harassment need not be reported to the authorities. Now what if a false accusation is made against a fellow employee? They are subject “to discipline up to and including termination.” The bishops should adopt this policy.

If this isn’t hypocritical enough, consider that the former head honcho of the BBC, Mark Thompson, was made president and CEO of the New York Times after it was disclosed that he was told of a cover-up: a scheduled BBC documentary on BBC icon and serial child rapist Jimmy Savile was spiked for political reasons. Thompson wanted nothing to stop his quest to land the coveted Times job, so he played dumb. But we subsequently learned that he knew all about the decision to nix the film.

Nienstedt has tried to reach out to the media to tell his side of the story, but what interests them is not his account, it is his sexuality. To be exact, they want to know what he does in bed, and with whom: three media outlets questioned him about his sexual behavior. He told the Star Tribune, “No, I’m not gay. And I’m not anti-gay.” When asked by the Pioneer Press if he had had sex with men since becoming archbishop, he said, “No. Not even before.” A homosexual reporter for KMSP, Fox 9 Minneapolis, also asked the archbishop about his sexuality.

Those out to get Nienstedt cannot be shamed, but they can be stopped. Unfortunately, too many Catholic activists and writers who know he is being railroaded have gone mute. This must end. We cannot stand by and watch these anti-Catholic zealots carry the day.

This is the article that appeared in the July/August 2023 edition of Catalyst, our monthly journal. The date that prints out reflects the day that it was uploaded to our website. For a more accurate date of when the article was first published, check out the news release, here.

Bill Donohue

1979: This was the beginning of the Sisters. In San Francisco’s Castro District three men dressed in traditional nun’s habit walked the streets. One of them carried a machine gun. Then they went to a nude beach. It was then that they adopted the name the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence.

1982: A year after AIDS was discovered, the Sisters were upset, but they did not complain about the lethal sex practices that gave rise to AIDS; rather, they complained about the “fear and prejudice” that it was engendering. “Sr. Florence Nightmare” and “Sr. Roz Erection” addressed the issue.

1987: The Sisters were granted a tax-exempt status after trashing Pope John Paul II’s visit to San Francisco. The Sisters held an “exorcism” and a “Condom Savior Mass” in Union Square. At the event, they featured “the Latex Host” and referred to Jesus as “the Condom Savior.” They also burned the Pope in effigy.

1987: They staged a “Hunky Jesus” contest, something they do every year on Easter Sunday.

1989: On their tenth anniversary, they held many events, including one with “Sr. Psychedelia’s” rise from the dead, and “Pope Dementia’s Altered Boys.” They wore “only thongs and smiles.”

1989: At the “Condom Savior Mass,” the Sisters read from a text of the “Condom Savior Consecration.” It said, “The Latex Host is the flesh for the life of the world. Just as the Creator who has life sent us, we have life because of the Condom Savior. Those who feed on this latex will have life because of it. This is the bread that comes down from Heaven, and, unlike those who eat not and therefore die, those who feed on this bread shall live forever!”

1990: A staff writer for the Miami Herald said the Sisters were noted for “carrying a 20-foot replica of a penis” at its street events.

1992: At a rally in Sacramento at the Capital Christian Center, the Sisters held signs of the Cross with a pink inverted triangle in the place of Jesus; the inscription read, “Stop Crucifying Queers.”

1992: “On Parade,” a publication of the San Francisco Lesbian/Gay Freedom Day Parade and Celebration Committee, published an article by “Sister Dana Van Iquity” which said the motto of the Sisters is “Encroach not on my crotch!” and “Leave my loins alone.” He described the day’s events, including “Dykes on Bikes” and “Dykes with Tikes on Trikes.”

1993: At another rally at the Capital Christian Center, protesters held a sign, “Queer Alert: Fighting for Freedom From Religion.”

1993: Twelve years after AIDS hit, they demonstrated in Washington, “reeling in anger and despair” over five of their members who died of the sexually transmitted disease.

1993: The Sisters were banned from the March on Washington’s stage for being “too controversial and not the appropriate image” for C-Span and “the movement.”

1993: The Sisters are seen as so offensive that they incur the wrath of Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, the authors of a landmark book on gays, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s. They say of the Sisters, “‘Fringe’ gay groups ought to have the tact to withdraw voluntarily from public appearance at gay parades, marches, and rallies, but they don’t care whether they fatally compromise the rest of us.”

1994: They served “holy communion wafers and tequila” to the congregation at a mock Mass.

1999: On the cover of the April 1, 1999 edition of the San Francisco Bay Times there was a full-page picture of a Sister superimposed on a cross-like photo with his hands stretched out, imitating Jesus on the Cross.

2000: In San Francisco, they held a Good Friday event where they sponsored a fetish fashion show that provided “a chance to get spanked” and free “Sticky Buns.” Dr. Carol Queen held her “Good Vibrations Dildo Fashion Show.”

2001: I petitioned the IRS to revoke the tax-exempt status of the Sisters, citing multiple examples of “vulgar, obscene and bigoted material against the Catholic Church and its members.”

2002: They celebrated Easter with an “Indulgence in the Park” event that featured a “clown-drag-nun” fundraiser, along with the annual “Hunky Jesus” contest.

2004: They spent the entire month of December bashing Christmas in Los Angeles.

2008: San Diego House of the Sisters—The Asylum of the Tortured Heart, which was founded in 2005, held a “Midnight Confessional Contest” that gave prizes to those with the “hottest confessions.” It was held in a gay bar.

2009: They held a block party in San Francisco where some of the men danced naked in the street.

2010: At the Yerba Buena Center for the Arts winter gala, the Sisters were asked to perform six musical acts in a “Nunway Noir” drag fashion show where attendees could “bask in the bloody gore of occult film screenings.”

2011: In a Daily Beast column, gay writer Andrew Sullivan called the Sisters’ “Hunky Jesus” event a form of “blasphemy.” He was so angry at them that he said, “This makes me feel like Bill Donohue.”

2018: The Multnomah County Library in Portland, Oregon hosted “Drag Queen Storytime with the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence,” despite their history of anti-Catholicism. The event explicitly targeted kids 2-6.

2022: The Sisters gave an award for featuring Lil Hot Mess, “a man who dresses as a woman for children and one of the leading activists behind Drag Queen Story Hour.”

2023: A Sister won the “Free Choice Mary” pro-abortion award. The man, dressed with a nun’s veil, wearing a bra and panties, was featured holding a baby doll with a sign, “I Had A Choice.”

Bill Donohue

(A timeline of anti-Catholic actions committed by these bigots)

1979: This was the beginning of the Sisters. In San Francisco’s Castro District three men dressed in traditional nun’s habit walked the streets. One of them carried a machine gun. Then they went to a nude beach. It was then that they adopted the name the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence.

1982: A year after AIDS was discovered, the Sisters were upset, but they did not complain about the lethal sex practices that gave rise to AIDS; rather, they complained about the “fear and prejudice” that it was engendering. “Sr. Florence  Nightmare” and “Sr. Roz Erection” addressed the issue.

1987: The Sisters were granted a tax-exempt status after trashing Pope John Paul II’s visit to San Francisco. The Sisters held an “exorcism” and a “Condom Savior Mass” in Union Square. At the event, they featured “the Latex Host” and referred to Jesus as “the Condom Savior.” They also burned the Pope in effigy.

1987: They staged a “Hunky Jesus” contest, something they do every year on Easter Sunday.

1989: On their tenth anniversary, they held many events, including one with “Sr. Psychedelia’s” rise from the dead, and “Pope Dementia’s Altered Boys.” They wore “only thongs and smiles.”

1989: At the “Condom Savior Mass,” the Sisters read from a text of the “Condom Savior Consecration.” It said, “The Latex Host is the flesh for the life of the world. Just as the Creator who has life sent us, we have life because of the Condom Savior. Those who feed on this latex will have life because of it. This is the bread that comes down from Heaven, and, unlike those who eat not and therefore die, those who feed on this bread shall live forever!”

1990: A staff writer for the Miami Herald said the Sisters were noted for “carrying a 20-foot replica of a penis” at its street events.

1992: At a rally in Sacramento at the Capital Christian Center, the Sisters held signs of the Cross with a pink inverted triangle in the place of Jesus; the inscription read, “Stop Crucifying Queers.”

1992: “On Parade,” a publication of the San Francisco Lesbian/Gay Freedom Day Parade and Celebration Committee, published an article by “Sister Dana Van Iquity” which said the motto of the Sisters is “Encroach not on my crotch!” and “Leave my loins alone.” He described the day’s events, including “Dykes on Bikes” and “Dykes with Tikes on Trikes.”

1993: At another rally at the Capital Christian Center, protesters held a sign, “Queer Alert: Fighting for Freedom From Religion.”

1993: Twelve years after AIDS hit, they demonstrated in Washington, “reeling in anger and despair” over five of their members who died of the sexually transmitted disease.

1993: The Sisters were banned from the March on Washington’s stage for being “too controversial and not the appropriate image” for C-Span and “the movement.”

1993: The Sisters are seen as so offensive that they incur the wrath of Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, the authors of a landmark book on gays, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s. They say of the Sisters, “‘Fringe’ gay groups ought to have the tact to withdraw voluntarily from public appearance at gay parades, marches, and rallies, but they don’t care whether they fatally compromise the rest of us.”

1994: They served “holy communion wafers and tequila” to the congregation at a mock Mass.

1999: On the cover of the April 1, 1999 edition of the San Francisco Bay Times there was a full-page picture of a Sister superimposed on a cross-like photo with his hands stretched out, imitating Jesus on the Cross.

2000: In San Francisco, they held a Good Friday event where they sponsored a fetish fashion show that provided “a chance to get spanked and free “Sticky Buns.” Dr. Carol Queen held her “Good Vibrations Dildo Fashion Show.”

2001: I petitioned the IRS to revoke the tax-exempt status of the Sisters, citing multiple examples of “vulgar, obscene and bigoted material against the Catholic Church and its members.”

2002: They celebrated Easter with an “Indulgence in the Park” event that featured a “clown-drag-nun” fundraiser, along with the annual “Hunky Jesus” contest.

2004: They spent the entire month of December bashing Christmas in Los Angeles.

2008: San Diego House of the Sisters—The Asylum of the Tortured Heart, which was founded in 2005, held a “Midnight Confessional Contest” that gave prizes to those with the “hottest confessions.” It was held in a gay bar.

2009: They held a block party in San Francisco where some of the men danced naked in the street.

2010: At the Yerba Buena Center for the Arts winter gala, the Sisters were asked to perform six musical acts in a “Nunway Noir” drag fashion show where attendees could “bask in the bloody gore of occult film screenings.”

2011: In a Daily Beast column, gay writer Andrew Sullivan called the Sisters’ “Hunky Jesus” event a form of “blasphemy.” He was so angry at  them that he said, “This makes me feel like Bill Donohue.”

2018: The Multnomah County Library in Portland, Oregon hosted “Drag Queen Storytime with the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence,” despite their history of anti-Catholicism. The event explicitly targeted kids 2-6.

2022: The Sisters gave an award for featuring Lil Hot Mess, “a man who dresses as a woman for children and one of the leading activists behind Drag Queen Story Hour.”

2023: A Sister won the “Free Choice Mary” pro-abortion award. The man, dressed with a nun’s veil, wearing a bra and panties, was featured holding a baby doll with a sign, “I Had A Choice.”

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the latest example of Christophobia:

It is the fastest growing phobia in the nation. Christophobia. To be sure, the fear of Christians is not overcoming America, but it has unquestionably overcome a large swath of non-believers, or those who profess no religious belief. Within this segment of the population, there are the indifferent at one end, and the haters at the other end.

If there is any doubt that the haters are growing, consider the overheated reaction by the New Yorker to a company that sells chicken sandwiches. Journalist Dan Piepenbring accuses Chick-fil-A of “carpet bombing” New York City. What did it do to merit such an accusation? It opened its fourth store in the Big Apple.

Why the ballistic response? The company is owned by practicing Christians. For instance, they believe marriage should be between a man and a woman. What else? That’s about it.

What few acknowledge is that Chick-fil-A practices what it preaches in ways that have nothing to do with politics. Before Christmas 2017, thousands were stranded in Atlanta on a Sunday evening because of a massive power outage. Chick-fil-A, which observes Sunday by closing, quickly reopened to feed travelers. After the shootings at a gay club in Orlando, Pulse, the “gay-hating” franchise opened on a Sunday to feed those waiting in line to give blood. And on a regular basis, it donates a ton of food to the homeless.

But none of this matters to the Bill de Blasios of the world. Indeed, the New York City mayor called for a boycott of Chick-fil-A when it opened in New York in 2016. Ironically, the Christian company that he hates winds up feeding the increasing number of homeless that his policies create.

What is driving the hatred of Chick-fil-A is the fear that its traditional moral values may prove inspiring.

The Left has only one God: power. That is what defines it. To the extent that Chick-fil-A inspires people to adopt its values, it is a threat to radical secularists. Moreover, survey data have repeatedly shown that a very large portion of the “nones,” those who answer “none” when asked about their religious affiliation, are on the Left. They see Christian activists as a threat. Jews are too secular to begin with, and Muslims are too small to matter. So they focus on Christians.

Last year, a survey from Baylor University found that 31 percent of the “nones” identified Christians as a “danger to our safety.” Less than half that number said the same about Muslims. Obviously, there has been no rash of Christians assaulting the “nones,” or anyone else, so the fear is not based in reality. But it is a perfect example of Christophobia, which is spreading like a disease among a large segment of secularists.

What the “nones” need is conversion therapy. This is not about converting them to Christianity, although that would be an ideal outcome, it is about getting them to stop with their irrational fear of Christians. What makes their fear so patently irrational is the fact that Christians, as evidenced by Chick-fil-A, are more likely to help them than hurt them.