Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on this season’s Halloween costumes:

There are costumes depicting Jesus, priests, nuns, ministers, rabbis and imams, and most of them are innocuous. But there are two costumes that are vulgar, and, as usual, they are designed to offend Catholics: a priest with an erection and a pregnant nun, often sold as a pair.

Some immigrant groups are upset about an illegal alien costume, but even those who are complaining don’t say it is vulgar. A mere depiction of Muhammad in a Danish cartoon that was anything but vulgar led to riots. Now imagine what would happen if we paired Muhammad sporting an erection with a Latina illegal alien? Not to worry, it’s only Catholic clergy and religious that the bigots want to bash.

Spirit Halloween, owned by Spencer Gifts, is carrying the objectionable costumes, as are the websites of Amazon, Halloween Costume World, Annie’s Costumes, Halloween Store and Halloween Express. We urge Catholics to patronize stores like Target, Walgreen’s, CVS and Wal-Mart: they don’t carry such offensive fare.

Contact Spirit Halloween official Steven Schwadron: steven.schwadron@fleishman.com

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on an article in today’s New York Times on New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his relations with African American ministers:

Rev. Calvin O. Butts III has managed to grab “at least $7 million in city contracts” under Bloomberg for his church and non-profits.

Rev. Floyd H. Flake is awash in millions of dollars—make that $8 million—in city contracts for city services his church provides.

Rev. A.R. Bernard wins the trophy: the Bloomberg administration decided to sell parts of two streets to his Christian Cultural Center.

According to the article, Bloomberg “has deployed an unusual combination of city money, private philanthropy, political appointments and personal attention, creating a web of ties to black clergy members that is virtually unheard of for a white elected official in New York City.”

Look what Bloomberg got in return: he received the endorsements and “the blessings of the city’s most powerful black ministers, who together preach to tens of thousands of congregants each week.”

Where in the world are the church and state watchdogs when it comes to government aid to black churches? If Catholic priests had this kind of “relationship” with Bloomberg, all hell would break loose.

Once again, white liberal racism is at work: black ministers can endorse political candidates with impunity, but woe to a Catholic priest who preaches against abortion. Moreover, Catholics are still waiting for Bloomberg to say it’s okay to put a nativity scene in the classroom alongside the Jewish religious symbol, the menorah. We don’t even want the mayor to buy us a street.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments as follows:

Last Friday on the Washington Post blog, “On Faith,” English atheist Richard Dawkins said the Catholic Church was “surely up there among the leaders” as “the greatest force for evil in the world.” He labeled the Eucharist a “cannibal feast,” adding that “possession of testicles is an essential qualification to perform the rite.” He also blamed the Church for sending missionaries “out to tell deliberate lies to AIDS-weakened Africans” regarding condoms. The Church’s outreach to Anglicans, he said, makes it “a common pimp,” noting that those who convert “will be joining an institution where buggering altar boys pervades the culture.”

On Saturday, a Los Angeles Times editorial said that “church leaders, including popes, have changed their thinking over the years about everything from usury to the culpability of Jews for the Crucifixion….” It concluded, “You don’t have to be Catholic (or Anglican) to realize that society as a whole would be better off if the church’s views of women and gays underwent a similar evolution.”

On Sunday, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd recalled that when she was in grade school, “Nuns were second-class citizens then and–40 years after feminism utterly changed America—they still are.” She called Pope Benedict XVI the “uber-conservative pope,” a.k.a. “God’s Rottweiler,” who was once “a conscripted member of the Hitler Youth.” She also accused the Church of enabling “rampant pedophilia.”

On Monday, James Carroll in the Boston Globe called the outreach to Anglicans “a cruel assault,” “an insult to loyal Catholic liberals” and “a slap at women and homosexuals.” He characterized the outreach as a “preemptive exploitation of Anglican distress.”

These deranged comments—all voiced in America’s premier newspapers—demonstrate that anti-Catholicism is the most virulent expression of bigotry in the U.S. It also shows why these newspapers, quite unlike the Catholic Church, are dying. As for the writers, they need to go to church. Either that or check into an asylum.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on a piece in today’s New York Times by Adam Liptak:

When two men want to get married, they call it “same-sex marriage,” but how many of us have heard of marriage being labeled “opposite-sex marriage”? Well, that’s exactly the way the New York Times is playing it. Referring to attorney Charles J. Cooper, who is pressing the case against recognition of gay marriage, Adam Liptak writes, “The government should be allowed to favor opposite-sex marriages, Mr. Cooper said, in order ‘to channel naturally procreative sexual activity between men and women into stable, enduring unions.’”

A Lexis-Nexis search shows this is only the tenth time the New York Times has ever used the term “opposite-sex marriage,” and only the fifth time it appeared in a news story (some columnists and letter writers have employed it). The first time anyone appears to have used this term was in the 1990s: an editorial in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch in 1994; a Yale Law Journal article that same year; an article by Andrew Sullivan in 1996 in the New Republic; and so on. Which raises the question: Is this the start of one more round of corrupting the English language?

Here’s how it will play out in the classroom: kindergartners will be told that some adults choose same-sex marriage and some choose opposite-sex marriage. There is no moral difference—it’s just a matter of different strokes for different folks. Not mentioned, of course, will be that some male-on-male sex practices are dangerous. Nor will it be pointed out that only so-called opposite-sex marriages are capable of reproducing the human race. In other words, the kids will be lied to about what nature ordains.

The politicization of language is nothing new, but this latest entry is particularly disturbing. Marriage means one thing, and attempts to make it a smorgasbord are pernicious.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on last night’s episode of “Curb Your Enthusiasm,” the HBO show where Larry David plays himself:

Mention Larry David in a word association game and “Seinfeld” rolls off the lips. That show, which David created, wrote and produced, was brilliant. “Curb Your Enthusiasm” is not. Indeed, last night’s episode demonstrates that David’s best years are behind him. He ought to quit while he’s ahead. 

At one point in the show, David goes to the bathroom in a Catholic home and splatters urine on a picture of Jesus; he doesn’t clean it off. Then a Catholic woman goes to the bathroom, sees the picture and concludes that Jesus is crying. She then summons her equally stupid mother and the two of them fall to their knees in prayer. When David and Jerry Seinfeld (playing himself) are asked if they ever experienced a miracle, David answers, “every erection is a miracle.” That’s what passes for creativity these days.

Was Larry David always this crude? Would he think it comedic if someone urinated on a picture of his mother? This might be fun to watch, but since HBO only likes to dump on Catholics (it was just a couple of weeks ago that Sarah Silverman insulted Catholics on “Real Time with Bill Maher”), and David is Jewish, we’ll never know.

Contact HBO Chairman and CEO, Bill Nelson: Bill.nelson@hbo.com

Catholic League president Bill Donohue speaks to the selection of Kevin Jennings as Director of the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools:

On September 23, I wrote a news release on the curious moral credentials of Kevin Jennings to be President Obama’s Safe Schools Czar: a former drug user and irresponsible teen counselor, he is also a Christian basher. What was not known at the time is that he is also a proud member of ACT UP, the homosexual urban terrorist group that broke into St. Patrick’s Cathedral in 1989 and disrupted Mass; the Eucharist was desecrated and obscene depictions of Cardinal O’Connor were posted.

Now a group called MassResistance, and the website WorldNetDaily, have exposed Jennings as a member of ACT UP. And he is no mere member: Jennings is listed as a donor to a sick display, “ACT UP New York: Activism, Art, and the AIDS Crisis, 1987-1993,” currently featured at the Harvard Art Museum. Harvard, of course, would never feature a display of Klan paraphernalia and say it was being done for the purpose of “dialogue.”

The real story here is not the corruption of Harvard—that’s old hat—the real story is the president of the United States choosing a morally challenged anti-Catholic homosexual to join his team. That Jennings belongs to, and sponsors, an urban terrorist organization, should alone disqualify him from public service at a municipal level. And remember, Obama did not choose him to monitor global cooling—he was chosen to instruct youth on moral matters.

Catholics deserve to know why Obama likes Jennings.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments as follows:

Several news stories today maintain that the Vatican lured and bid for Episcopalians to join the Roman Catholic Church. This is nonsense. The opening sentence in yesterday’s Vatican post on this subject said, “With the preparation of an Apostolic Constitution, the Catholic Church is responding to the many requests that have been submitted to the Holy See from groups of Anglican clergy and faithful in different parts of the world who wish to enter into full visible communion.” Indeed, at least two dozen Anglican bishops, as well as many of the rank-and-file, petitioned the Vatican for assistance. Just as bad is the media Groupthink.

It was yesterday’s online story in the New York Times, “Vatican Bidding to Get Anglicans to Join Its Fold,” that started the mantra: the first sentence of this story, repeated in today’s newspaper version, says, “In an extraordinary bid to lure traditionalist Anglicans en masse….” Not surprisingly, the Boston Globe, which is owned by the Times, carried the same story. The Washington Post started its story today by saying, “In a remarkable bid to attract disillusioned members of the Anglican Communion….” Today’s Christian Science Monitor asked if the Vatican would now try to “lure” Africa’s Anglican bishops, saying that yesterday Rome “launched its bold bid” for Anglicans to join. AP’s first story on this yesterday did not use such language. But after reading the Times’ gospel, today it ran a headline, “Vatican Seeks to Lure Disaffected Anglicans.”

Happily, there were exceptions to this Groupthink, e.g., the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Washington Times. They did not engage in Catholic baiting and reported the story accurately.

Why the Catholic baiting charge? Because it feeds the stereotype that the conniving Vatican has embarked on another one of its legendary power grabs. Pure bunk, as any independent-minded source would acknowledge. One question: Who was the Vatican in a bidding war with?

On October 18, Fox broadcast the 20th episode of “The Simpsons” Halloween special. One of the three stories, “Don’t Have a Cow, Mankind,” was about people in Springfield becoming zombies after eating hamburgers infected with tainted meat.

After 28 days, Bart (the son) tries one of the infected hamburgers, but proves immune to the virus. He becomes the “Chosen One” and the Simpsons go off to find the safe zone where the rest of the uninfected people have gathered. When they get there a guard says, “Welcome, son. To survive, all we must do is eat your flesh.” Marge (Bart’s mother) responds by saying, “What kind of civilized people eat the body and blood of their savior?”

Catholic League president Bill Donohue responds as follows:

What kind of uncivilized people work at Fox? Last year, when they poked some gentle fun at the Apostle’s Creed on the Halloween episode, we said nothing. That’s because it didn’t cross the line. This year is different: mocking the heart of any religion always crosses the line, and mocking the Eucharist does it for Catholics. They know this at Fox, which is precisely why they did it.

Contact Peter Rice, Chairman of Entertainment, Fox Broadcasting: peter.rice@fox.com

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on how the New York Times decides what’s newsworthy:

The New York Times has a story today about a gay activist who as a counselor learned about a case of homosexual statutory rape, but did not tell the boy to go to the authorities. Instead, he recommended the kid wear a condom. The man who gave this advice has been appointed by President Obama to be the new “Safe Schools Czar.” The story appears on p. 19. On the front page, above the fold, there is a story about a priest who had a consensual affair with a woman. 

After a mid-western woman separates from her husband, she has an affair with a Franciscan priest. She gets pregnant and miscarries. They vow to “keep the relationship platonic,” but don’t. She gives birth to a boy. She signs a confidentiality agreement and the Franciscans fork over $85,000 to cover the costs of the birth, furniture for the baby, child support, legal fees, etc. The priest is sent for treatment. He gets out and the affair starts up again. The woman uses $38,000 of child support for a down payment on a house, the result of which is the money runs out before the boy is 18. She remarries. She gets divorced. She remarries. The Franciscans pay half of the boy’s college expenses, plus a stipend of almost $600 a month, until he is 21. The Franciscans pay 50 percent of her son’s cancer treatment expenses. She goes to New York with her lawyer husband for a one-week consultation regarding her son’s tumors. The Franciscans give them $1,000 to cover the trip. They stay in a New York hotel for three months, expecting the Franciscans to pony up again. They don’t. Hence, she breaks her confidentiality agreement and goes public.

There is a reason why this story about an irresponsible priest and an irresponsible woman merited 2,424 words on p. 1, and the story about the irresponsible gay activist turned “Schools Czar” merited 488 words on p. 19: the lead story was about ginning up public sentiment against priestly celibacy.

Celibacy causes priests to cheat the same way marriage causes spouses to cheat—it provides the opportunity but does not determine the conduct.

Two Maryland hospitals, Holy Cross and AdventistHealthCare, have submitted bids to run a new facility in northern Montgomery County; the former is Catholic and the latter is owned by the Seventh Day Adventist Church. Holy Cross is being opposed by feminists because it is anti-abortion. 

Catholic League president Bill Donohue jumped on this issue today:

Feminists from Planned Parenthood, NARAL and the National Organization for Women (NOW), are saying that if Holy Cross gets the bid, it would hurt “indigent citizens.” Why would this happen? Because their care is “reimbursed by state funds.” This argument, however, collapses when considering the evidence: Holy Cross has a mission statement that commits it to doing charitable work for the indigent. This is not idle talk. For example, right now, more than 70 percent of uninsured women having children come from around the state to Holy Cross’ current location in Silver Spring.

What’s really bugging the feminists is the refusal of Catholic hospitals to perform abortions. That’s why a member of NOW exploded at Holy Cross, telling them to “get out of the way.” The champions of abortion would rather see uninsured women suffer before ever saying okay to a Catholic hospital.

Think of it this way. Why is one group of women, almost all of whom are wealthy, white and post-menopausal, so enthusiastic about the rights of another group of women, almost all of whom are poor, non-white and fertile? It wouldn’t make sense unless it was the goal of the privileged to limit the numbers of the dispossessed. This, of course, is exactly what motivated Margaret Sanger to found Planned Parenthood—to weed out what she called “the undesirables.”

Coupled with their virulent anti-Catholicism, these affluent feminists should be discussed in every college class on racism, classism and bigotry.