Catholic League president William Donohue commented on Senator John Kerry’s acceptance speech last night:

“Not too long ago, people of faith constituted the heart and soul of both the Republican and Democratic parties.  But to show how things have changed, consider that last night Kerry said, ‘we welcome people of faith.  America is not us and them.’  It used to be the other way around—people of faith were the core of the Democratic Party who welcomed non-believers to the table.  Now it’s been reversed.  Kerry’s use of the words ‘us’ and ‘them’ is even more striking: he literally aligned the most active Democrats with the faithless and then tagged the faithful as the outsiders.

“There are other problems with Kerry’s speech as well.  Never once did he say how religion has guided his life, yet he now is running two TV ads—one in English and one in Spanish—that tout his religious commitment.  For example, the former ad says he was an altar boy, thought about becoming a priest and wore a rosary around his neck while serving in Vietnam.  Similarly, his website’s biography prominently lists his active membership in the Catholic Church.  And just recently he told CNN’s Larry King that his religion is ‘the bedrock’ of his life.  Which begs the question of whether Kerry is playing politics with his religion.

“Maybe the omission is a better reflection of who he really is.  While one of his friends growing up, Daniel Barbiero, says Kerry was religious, this is contradicted by his friends Maxwell King and David Thorne (the brother of Julia Thorne, Kerry’s first wife).  In any event, we do know that in Kerry’s marriage to Thorne, an Episcopalian, he did not insist that his children be raised Catholic (in direct contradiction to Catholic Church teaching).  And we also know that he married Teresa Heinz before receiving an annulment of his first marriage.

“No matter, Kerry has now divided America into two camps—the ‘us’ and the ‘them.’  To make matters worse, it is reported that he wrote this speech himself.  Now all he has to do is explain this to the 90 percent of Americans who believe in God.”

At its annual convention, the American Psychological Association (APA) today endorsed homosexual marriage.  The decision, made by the APA’s Council of Representatives, commits the organization to supporting gay marriage.  Within the APA, it was the Working Group on Same-Sex Families and Relationships that developed the approved statement.  This group is headed by Armand Cerbone, a Chicago psychologist.

Catholic League president William Donohue was amused:

“The only surprise in learning of this decision was why it took so long.  After all, in 1998 the same organization published the ‘Rind’ study that took a kind and gentle look at man-boy sex.  The study, which ignited public attention, said that ‘quite a few of the [molested] boys remembered their childhood sexual experiences positively.’  Now any organization that can essentially sanction pedophilia (its sister group, the American Psychiatric Association, last year toyed with the idea of removing pedophilia from its list of mental illnesses) is a sure bet to say it’s okay for Tom and Dick to get married.  It has not yet said whether Tom, Dick and Harry should also be allowed to marry.  No doubt that will be a matter of discussion next year.

“The principal player behind this decision, Dr. Armand Cerbone, is not exactly a disinterested party.  Cerbone and his gay partner, Michael, have been fundraisers for the Society for the Psychological Study of Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Issues.  So popular is Armand among Chicago homosexuals that he was nominated by the Advisory Council for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgendered Issues of the Chicago Commission on Human Relations (I’m not making this up!) to be inducted into the Chicago Gay and Lesbian Hall of Fame.  And guess what?  He slid right in.

“No one but college students will be fooled by this game.  But that is damage enough.  The politicization of homosexuality in this country is now all but out of control.  Look for the shrinks to sanction necrophilia—sex with the dead—before the decade is over.”

Catholic League president William Donohue offered the following remarks today on Senator John Kerry’s interview yesterday with ABC TV anchor Peter Jennings:

“Senator Kerry recently said that he believes life begins at conception.  Accordingly, Peter Jennings asked, why isn’t ‘even a first-trimester abortion not murder?’  Kerry replied, ‘No, because it’s not the form of life that takes personhood in the terms that we have judged it to be in the past.  It’s the beginning of life.’  Thus did Kerry distinguish between human life and personhood.

“Kerry’s dichotomy was advanced by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1857 in the Dred Scott decision that legalized slavery.  In that ruling, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney wrote that members of ‘the negro race’ were ‘not regarded as a portion of the people or citizens of the Government.’  Similarly, he concluded that ‘it is too plain for argument, that they have never been regarded as part of the people or citizens of the State.’

“Kerry floated another dichotomy yesterday that is equally troubling.  When pressed by Jennings whether he could ever imagine himself campaigning against abortion, Kerry said, ‘Well, I don’t think—let me tell you clearly that being pro-choice is not pro-abortion.’  But why isn’t it?  Voters need to know exactly what it is about abortion that Kerry doesn’t like.  What’s holding back his enthusiasm?  In other words, why isn’t he pro-abortion?  And what is it that is being aborted?  A human life that is not a person?  Does even Kerry believe this to be true?

“Kerry wants the Catholic vote.  According to an AP story today, the Massachusetts delegates are mostly Catholic.  But they describe themselves as ‘non-practicing, lapsed, recovering and even ‘unhappy’ Catholics.’  These are the kind of Catholics who gravitate to Kerry.  They are also the kind who like his tortured logic on abortion.  Unfortunately for Kerry, they are not representative of most Catholics.  Practicing Catholics know that a baby is a person, and persons have rights, beginning with the right to be born.”

Catholic League president William Donohue drew a comparison today between the way Newsday is handling its circulation scandal and the way it has treated Rockville Centre Bishop William Murphy:

“The Tribune Company, which owns Newsday, has already had to fork over $35 million to cover settlements with advertisers.  Now 50 car dealers are suing for $125 million.  The extent and depth of corruption at Newsday, and its Spanish-language daily, Hoy, is staggering.  They have been fraudulently hiking their circulation for years. 

“Here’s the way they do business at Newsday: they count dead people as subscribers; they deliver papers to burned down houses; they drop off bulk copies to dealers who have said they don’t want them; they cook their internal corporate reports; and they even alter affidavits by distributors to pump circulation figures.  The extent of corruption is so common that they have even developed their own jargon: ‘Code 51’ means to continue delivering newspapers to customers who have cancelled their subscriptions or have stopped paying.

“The person in charge of the business side of Newsday, Ray Jansen, has been forced to retire early.  James Klurfeld, editor of the editorial page, said today of Jansen that ‘nothing missed his gaze.’  Nothing?  It gets better.  Klurfeld then says of Jansen that ‘His power of observation was almost uncanny, as if he had X-ray vision.’  To make matters worse, Klurfeld tells us that Jansen ‘rose through the ranks of the advertising department’ and that his ‘talent was on the business side.’  He obviously doesn’t connect the dots—he has just indicted Jansen.

“Newsday should take some of its own medicine.  Columnist Sheryl McCarthy once wrote that the pope should step down because of the scandal in the Church.  Should not the entire editorial board of Newsday do the same?  Ed Lowe said Bishop Murphy belongs in prison.  Should we not lock up the top brass at Newsday?  And Jimmy Breslin said that anyone who gives to the diocese is giving money to pedophiles.  Which seems to argue that anyone who buys Newsday is giving to gangsters.”

On the front page of today’s Washington Post, there is an article on John Kerry that maintains that he is not particularly comfortable talking about religion, save before black audiences.  The article concludes by saying that his presidential campaign has no plans to give a high profile to the discussion of faith and values.  Yet just two days ago, USA Today published an opinion piece by Gerald L. Zelizer that commended the Kerry campaign for taking a “first step” in addressing the role of religion and values by recently hiring a director of religious outreach.

Catholic League president William Donohue explains the league’s reaction to the two pieces:

“After reading the Zelizer article in USA Today, I asked Joseph De Feo, the league’s associate director of communications, to contact the Kerry campaign’s director of religious outreach.  We knew that after we exposed the radical resume of Kerry’s initial director of religious outreach, Mara Vanderslice, that the campaign had silenced her.  Not knowing who was in charge of this office, De Feo called seeking information about position papers, activities, etc.  He was told that Vanderslice is still in charge, but was unavailable.  He left a message asking her to call him back, which she has not.

“So what’s going on?  Yesterday, Kerry was quite felicitous quoting Scripture to African Americans at the NAACP convention.  It is besides the point that he told the mostly Protestant gathering that the Protestant teaching on salvation—faith alone matters—is wrong (there must be deeds, he insisted), what is striking about this event is that it shows once again that Kerry likes to invoke ‘God talk’ in front of blacks, but refuses to do so in front of whites.  What is it about white people and the subject of religion that gives him the jitters, he does not say.  No matter, Democratic consultant Amy Sullivan is right to charge that such an approach is ‘not only a condescending strategy, but a foolish one.’

“Want to know what gives Kerry the jitters?  Offending his heavily secularist, and often anti-religious, base of white contributors and supporters.”

Catholic League president William Donohue released the following comments regarding the press release of the Archdiocese of New York stating that Msgr. John Woolsey has been asked to step down as pastor of St. John the Martyr:

“The statement from the Archdiocese of New York claiming that Msgr. Woolsey has been asked to step down as pastor of St. John the Martyr is false.  He found out when I spoke to him.  And I found out when WCBS TV reporter John Slattery called and left a message about what had happened.  The Archdiocese’s press release arrived in our office at about the same time.

“Everyone needs to keep one thing in mind: allegations of administrative improprieties, and charges of illegally shaking down an old lady for greed, are two different things.  The Archdiocese has not accused Msgr. Woolsey of the latter, and has said only of the former that there is evidence of ‘apparent improper administration of the parish.’  (My emphasis.)

“The Catholic League will stand by Msgr. Woolsey to the end.  He is a man of integrity, despite what anyone else alleges.”

Monsignor John Woolsey, pastor of St. John the Martyr in Manhattan, addressed the faithful after today’s 12:15 p.m. Mass.  He read from a prepared statement.  Some of those who listened to his remarks were interviewed by the media outside the church, including Catholic League president William Donohue.  Donohue offered the following observations when he returned to the office:

“It is not only preposterous to believe that Msgr. Woolsey would squeeze an elderly woman for money, it is patently obscene for anyone to make such an allegation.  I have known him for over a decade, and if he were the conniving type, I would have known it by now.  So would those who have worked with him, to say nothing of his parishioners.

“It’s about time the media started questioning Msgr. Woolsey’s accuser, including her lawyers.  For starters, they can ask attorney Brian Caplan, who represents the estate of Rose Cale, why he made the following comment in a July 12 press release: ‘Given the trusted and confidential relationship which exists between these [spiritual] leaders and their followers, the law presumes that any gift procured by such a leader is obtained through improper means.’  Caplan adds that religious leaders have a ‘moral and ethical obligation’ not to accept ‘significant gifts.’  And he has a professional obligation to stop talking like a philosopher and start making accusations—if he can make them—about any alleged legal impropriety.  His inability to do so is revealing.

“Caplan knows very well that gifts, by definition, are not ‘procured’—they are given.  He must also know that it is common practice for priests, ministers and rabbis to receive gifts from their congregants.  Furthermore, no one but the most pure would ever object.  More important, that is exactly what happened here: Msgr. Woolsey received gifts from Rose Cale that she voluntarily gave.  So what?  And as he said in his statement, ‘Every nickel that she ever gave to St. John’s has been used for the parish’s benefit, not mine.’

“Msgr. Woolsey is innocent.  When he wins, we plan to give him a gift.  And just to drive Caplan nuts, we’ll make sure it’s beyond ‘significant.’”

The Mainstream Coalition, based in Johnson County, Kansas, is sending recruits into area churches to see if IRS guidelines are being followed.   The group, which bills itself as committed to separation of church and state, is concerned that local clergymen may be violating their tax-exempt status by endorsing candidates for elective office.  What prompted the campaign was a public meeting where Evangelical ministers spoke out against homosexual marriage.

Catholic League president William Donohue is wary of the group’s tactics and released the following statement today:

“To conduct a covert operation in houses of worship for the purpose of monitoring homilies is not the kind of operation conducted by friends of the First Amendment.  This is not the first time such a raid has been held by the enemies of religion: the ACLU dispatched an attorney to follow Rep. Henry Hyde of Illinois into a Roman Catholic Church in the 1970s to spy on his activities (the ACLU was trying to show that Hyde’s Catholic views were unfairly affecting his views on abortion).  Hyde was not surprised by the ACLU’s action: ‘I suppose the Nazis did that—observed Jews going into the synagogues in Hitler’s Germany—but I had hoped that we would have gotten past that kind of fascist tactic.’  Interestingly, the ACLU is one of the organizations linked to the Mainstream Coalition’s website.

“The Catholic League is sending this news release to all 400 churches in Johnson County, Kansas.  Our advice is fourfold: a) abide by the IRS guidelines by not endorsing from the pulpit any candidate for public office or any party (it is legal to make endorsements as individuals) b) speak freely about any issue you want, including opposition to homosexual marriage, from the pulpit c) do not be intimidated by the enemies of religion from exercising your First Amendment right to freedom of speech and d) contact the Catholic League if you feel you have been in any way harassed by these spies.

“The bottom line is this: the censors of religious speech must be defeated.”

Catholic League president William Donohue offered the following remarks today on a new poll released by Catholics for a Free Choice:

“The purpose of this poll, authorized by the nation’s leading anti-Catholic organization, is to persuade the public that a) Catholics are not concerned about abortion b) what the bishops say doesn’t matter and c) church-going Catholics are not influenced by their religious practices.  It fails on all counts.

“To begin with, the survey concludes that Catholics are more concerned about the war on terrorism and the situation in Iraq than anything else.  Which makes Catholics about as remarkable as, say, Eskimos.

“The poll also says that 70 percent of Catholics say it is not very important to them what the views of the bishops are in deciding whom they should vote for.  The predicate of this question is flawed: the bishops not only do not tell Catholics who to vote for, they themselves are deeply divided.  And with regard to public policy issues, few are as clear-cut as abortion.  For example, the bishops implore Catholics to help the poor, but how they should do so is left for individual Catholics to decide.  The same is true of issues like the environment, health care, etc.

“The poll discloses that the more Catholics attend Mass, the more likely they are to vote for Bush.  This is not surprising—it confirms what all the other surveys have said.  But because this is greeted as bad news, the spin doctors who wrote the summary statement say that among liberal Catholics who are frequent church-goers, most of them will vote for Kerry.  What they conveniently left out is that the proportion of frequent church-goers who are liberal is quite small.  Nice try.

“Frances Kissling, the director of the group that commissioned the poll, has previously said that it is her goal to ‘overthrow’ the Catholic Church.  Given her latest effort, it is clear that she has her work cut out for her.”

Catholic League president William Donohue commented today on news reports that Monsignor John Woolsey, pastor of St. John the Martyr in Manhattan, allegedly bilked an elderly parishioner out of nearly $500,000:

“I have known Msgr. Woolsey as a friend for over a decade and consider him to be one of the finest priests I have ever met.  That is why I am so disturbed to learn that he is being tried in the court of public opinion over charges that have a strange odor to them.  He deserves better than this.

“According to news accounts today, his accuser, Janet Naegele, says that priests ‘should not accept large personal gifts from’ their parishioners.  Is this the best she can do?  Is there something wrong with priests, pastors, rabbis or imams who take a ‘large personal gift’ from one of their congregants?  Her charge is so weak as to make it ludicrous.  It is one thing if a clergyman shakes down a member of his flock, quite another if he takes a gift that has been voluntarily given to him.

“It has also been alleged that Msgr. Woolsey would often dine with Rose Cale, the elderly woman who generously gave to his parish.  Now how about that?  Isn’t that proof positive he’s a hustler?  Even worse, he is alleged to having escorted her to her doctor’s office?  Is this the kind of behavior we expect from priests?  How sly of him to do so!  And to top it off, there is evidence that Msgr. Woolsey actually signed letters to her, ‘Love, Msgr. Woolsey.’  The kicker is this—lawyers have evidently concluded that he did not sign all of his letters this way.  They’re so right: having personally received letters of thanks from Msgr. Woolsey for occasionally taking him to dinner, never once did he sign off, ‘Love, Msgr. Woolsey.’  Enter this as Exhibit A.

“The court of law will deal with the details.  But for right now, before anyone hyperventilates over this case, it would be wise to take a deep breath and wait until the whole story is known to the public.

“For the record, I did not clear this news release with Msgr. Woolsey or his attorneys.”