Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the latest attack on the pope by the New York Times:

 Once upon a time there was a homosexual priest who was accused of molesting boys in Germany. That was 30 years ago. At the approval of Archbishop Joseph Ratzinger (now the pope), he was sent away for therapy and was later reinstated; years later, under a new archbishop, there was another incident and more therapy. 

We know this because the New York Times (which does not like to report on molesting rabbis in 2010), told us about this on Saturday in a front-page article. Today, it ran a front-page article on the same story. Was there any difference? Yes. On Saturday, the Times was only able to identify the priest as bearing the initial “H.” Today, it has real news: his name is Hullermann. And now “H” has been suspended.

 Was it wrong to send abusers to therapy? Is it wrong today? The Times does not say. While it is painfully obvious that psychologists and psychiatrists have oversold their competency in treating abusers, it has long been considered to be both scientifically and ethically sound. It still is. Perhaps that view is unwarranted, but it is flatly unfair to cherry pick Catholic decision-makers for indictment when therapy fails.

 The Times also wrote today that when the pope was Cardinal Ratzinger under Pope John Paul II, he was “in charge of reviewing sexual abuse cases for the Vatican.” In doing so, the Times leaves the impression that Ratzinger was in charge of overseeing these cases when the scandal developed. Nonsense. The Times reported on January 9, 2002 that he had just been appointed to this role. Thus, he had nothing to do with this issue at the time when most of the abuse took place (mid-60s to mid-80s). 

 The Times has a vested ideological interest in keeping this story alive. To say it dislikes Pope Benedict XVI intensely is an understatement.

  Contact NYT Public Editor Clark Hoyt: public@nytimes.com

On the front page of the “Week in Review” section of Sunday’s New York Times, there was a piece on health care titled, “Is Failure Forgivable?” Accompanying the article was a photo of President Obama in shirt sleeves with his finger pointed upwards. Superimposed in the background was an illustration that showed an illuminated cross; a halo over Obama’s head was also depicted. A small picture of the White House was shown at the bottom of the cross.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue commented as follows:

Sean Hannity refers to President Obama as “the anointed one.” The only difference between Hannity and the New York Times is that his characterization is meant as sarcasm. The Times actually believes it.

This is the same newspaper that refused to run the Danish cartoon imagery of Muhammad. Nice to know that it obviously has no problem misappropriating Christian imagery to make a political point, even during Lent. What a class bunch.

Contact NYT Public Editor Clark Hoyt: public@nytimes.com

Catholic League president Bill Donohue takes on the New York Times:

On March 10, the New York Times ran an article on sex abuse in the Catholic Church stating that in Austria a priest abused a boy 40 years ago. Yesterday, readers learned of a German case where a man says he was abused in 1979. But when Rabbi Baruch Lebovits was found guilty last week on eight counts of sexually abusing a Brooklyn boy, the Times failed to report it. This is not an accident—it is deliberate.

Worse, on Saturday, the Times ran a front-page story saying that in 2002, when the sex abuse scandal in Boston hit, the pope—then Cardinal Ratzinger—”made statements that minimized the problem.” No quotes or evidence of any kind were given. “Minimize the problem.” Interesting phrase. In 2005, the Times reported that in 2002, Ratzinger believed that “less than 1 percent of priests are guilty” of sex abuse (it was later found that 4 percent was a more accurate figure). The Times characterized his remark by saying he “appeared to minimize the problem.” Looks like they got their talking points down just fine.

What the Times could have said over the weekend was that on January 9, 2002, three days after the Boston Globe broke the story on sex abuse, it ran a story reporting that Ratzinger had sent a letter to the bishops worldwide saying that “even a hint” of the sexual abuse of minors merited an investigation. But to do so would have compromised the conclusion it sought to reach.

If the Times were truly interested in eradicating sex abuse, it not only would report on cases like Rabbi Lebovits, it would not seek to protect the public school establishment. But it does. Here’s the proof. Last year, there were two bills being debated in Albany on the subject of sex abuse: one targeted only private institutions like the Catholic Church, giving the public schools a pass; the other covered both private and public. The Times endorsed the former.

Contact NYT Public Editor Clark Hoyt: public@nytimes.com

Catholic League president Bill Donohue weighs in on the flap over Glenn Beck’s comment that people should leave their church if it is promoting “social justice”:

Glenn Beck has been slammed all week for his flip remark, and some have accused him of being anti-Christian. Let’s examine what he said.

Beck said that “social justice” and “economic justice” are “code words.” Of course they are: they are code for economic redistribution. “Pro-life” is also a code word—it means anti-abortion. For the record, the Catholic Church embraces both a social justice and pro-life position. It is pro-union, believes in universal health care, promotes a “preferential option for the poor,” and is opposed to abortion, assisted suicide and embryonic stem cell research.

Many are hammering Beck for saying, “Am I advising people to leave their church? Yes!” A closer read of what he said shows he followed that quip with, “If I am going to Jeremiah Wright’s church. If you have a priest that is pushing social justice, go find another parish.”

Beck didn’t say Christians should abandon their religion. He recommended shopping around to find a more conservative parish if one is dissatisfied with hearing left-wing sermons. Nothing new about that. In the Catholic Church, there are priests who are stridently left-wing and stridently right-wing; many parishioners shop accordingly. Protestants shop by leaving one denomination for another. And so on.

Some of those who have criticized Beck have done so in a sincere way. Others are just phonies. Just yesterday, we dealt with an issue which is far more serious than a sarcastic remark—we called out a radical feminist leader for branding pro-life Catholic congressman Bart Stupak “un-American.” And the day before we protested news stories accusing the bishops of “polluting” the health care debate. But we heard nothing from the social justice crowd about these matters. Wonder why.

Mary Pollock, legislative vice president of the Michigan chapter of the Nation& Organization for Women, yesterday accused Rep. Bart Stupak, a Catholic, of imposing his religious beliefs on the nation. “It is outrageous and un-American,” Pollock said of the pro-life congressman.

Commenting on this remark is Bill Donohue of the Catholic League:

Smear words have been used against virtually every religious, racial and ethnic group in American history. Fortunately, they are rarely voiced anymore. Unfortunately, it is still fair game in many quarters to indict Roman Catholics. One of the most vile canards ever invoked against Catholics is the rap that they are “un-American.” This bigoted slur has its origins in the early part of the 19 century. It is more than disconcerting—it is disgusting—that it is still being made against Catholics in 2010. That it should come horn the mouth of a radical feminist activist is not wholly surprising, but it is reprehensible nonetheless.

As the clock winds down on the health care bill, anti-Catholicism is raising its ugly head with greater frequency. It is time for men and women of goodwill from all faith backgrounds, and on both sides of the abortion issue, to unequivocally denounce these bigoted expressions. What Mary Pollock said should be condemned by everyone.

Contact the Michigan president of NOW, Renee Beeker: Presidentminow@aol.com

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments as follows:

No, this is not a news release about Rahm Emanuel, though it could have been. After all, he is the pro-abortion Jew who is working quietly to shape the health bill. But I wouldn’t have characterized his lobbying that way. Why? Because to do so would have smacked of Jew-baiting. NPR, however, ran an article today about Richard Doerflinger, the pro-life point man for the bishops, that read, “Powerful Catholic Quietly Shaping Abortion, Health Bill Debate.” The inartful headline marred an otherwise fair piece.

NPR looks innocent next to others. In the past week, Slate.com has questioned, “Whither Ecumenism? Catholics Interfere with a Rival Doctrine.” Newsweek ran a piece entitled, “When Bishops Play Politics: A New Generation Gets Righteous.” Examiner.com used this headline: “Religion Pollutes, Threatens Health Care Reform via Abortion, Catholic Bishops.” And RHRealityCheck.org posted an article beckoning readers to “take a good, hard look at just how the Bishops are cooking it up…Covering-up their real intentions with lofty sentiments about morality and justice while they cook-away, and deal-away, behind closed doors….”

“Jews Interfere.” “When Rabbis Play Politics: A New Generation Gets Righteous.” “Religion [Judaism] Pollutes.” “Rabbis Deal-Away, Behind Closed Doors.” Such bigotry would never be published by any of the aforementioned media outlets.

Now the inevitable. Connie Saltonstall, a Michigan activist, has decided to challenge Rep. Bart Stupak in the Democratic primary; Stupak is leading the fight against abortion coverage in the health bill. Citing his “personal, religious views,” she says it is “reprehensible” for him to “deprive his constituents of needed health care reform because of those views.” (My italics.) You guessed it—Stupak is Catholic.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue calls into question media coverage of Muslim violence against Christians in Nigeria:

According to The Australian, “dozens of bodies lined the streets” of three Christian villages in northern Nigeria. “Other victims of the weekend’s Muslim fury jammed a local morgue, the limbs of slaughtered children tangled in a grotesque mess.” Children were scalped, “most had severed hands and feet,” and “officials estimate that 500 people were massacred in night-time raids by rampaging Muslim gangs.” According to one eyewitness media account, “They then set homes on fire and attacked men, women and children. Many were decapitated.”

Now here is how CNN is reporting the story. “Gangs of machete-wielding Muslims have been blamed for the weekend slaughter of hundreds of Christian villagers in Nigeria, but analysts say it would be wrong to assume the conflict was rooted in religion.” Of course: When Muslims massacre Christians, religion never has anything to do with it.

“Some analysts,” the story continues, “believe the weekend slaughter was a revenge attack for the killing of around 150 members of the Hausa Muslim community by Christian mobs in Kuru Karama south of Jos, in January 2010.” Well, let’s see. Back in January, a U.N. media outlet reported that Muslim and Christian leaders in Kuru Karama, a predominantly Muslim village, “met to make a pact with the police to defend any attacks by outsiders.” But guess what happened? “Several hours later youths armed with machetes attacked the village.” And we know who likes machetes.

Back to CNN. It cited an ugly Muslim-Christian incident in 2001 in the same area. What started the Muslim massacre back then? “A Christian woman had tried to cross the road through a group of Muslims during Friday prayers.” Yeah, that’ll do it every time.

It’s time to stop viewing Muslim-Christian violence through the lens of moral equivalency.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue offers several examples of media bias drawn from today’s newspapers:

Orthodox Rabbi Baruch Lebovits was found guilty yesterday on eight counts of sexually abusing a 16-year old boy in Brooklyn. When a Catholic priest is accused of embezzlement—never mind sexual abuse—it typically merits a front-page story in the New York Daily News and the New York Post; the New York Times usually places such stories in a less prominent spot. On Rabbi Lebovits, the Daily News ran a 334-word story on p. 15; the Post put a 143-word piece on p. 6; and the Times ignored it altogether.

The New York Times ran another lengthy story today about Charles Pellegrino, author of a book on Hiroshima that has been withdrawn by his publisher over concerns that Pellegrino used fraudulent sources and has been less than candid about his credentials and other matters. Both today’s story, and the one from March 2, discuss some of Pellegrino’s other writings, but neither mentions a book he co-wrote, The Jesus Family Tomb, that was widely shown to be a hoax: the book said there was evidence of a tomb housing the remains of Jesus and his family.

There are lots of Protestants and Jews who are pro-abortion and support the health care bill currently being considered, but their religion never seems to get mentioned in the press. The AP has a story today citing opposition to the bill from Rep. Bart Stupak, noting that he is a “Roman Catholic” who has been questioned about his religious views.

Regarding the Muslim murder of Christians in Nigeria, we found 34 headlines citing “religious” violence; four mentioned “Christian-Muslim violence”; and only one, The Times (of London), said anything like “Rampaging Muslim Gangs Trap Christian Victims in Nets.”

None of this is by accident, and none of it is indicative of a cabal. It’s all a reflection of a deep-seated anti-Catholic animus on the part of many elites. And these examples are all drawn from just today’s news stories.

A bill in the Kansas House of Representatives that was initially introduced to repeal the sales tax exemption of all non-profit organizations was recently amended to target only religious non-profits. The bill, which will be debated next week, would penalize the Catholic Church and organizations like Catholic Charities, as well as other religions and charitable groups.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue commented as follows:

We would expect something this brazen in states like New York, Illinois or California, not Kansas. Surely the sponsors know that in the unlikely event they succeed, the courts will strike the legislation. Not only do houses of worship and their charitable ancillary groups fulfill the express purpose of granting a tax-exempt status in the first place—servicing the common good—they cannot be singled out among non-profits in such a discriminatory manner. If it were libraries, hospitals, foundations or colleges and universities that were subject to having their tax-exempt status pulled, it would be met with great resistance. Bet on Catholics, as well as Protestants, Jews and others, to register their outrage.

We know that due to incompetence and cowardice, Republicans and Democrats at the federal, state and local levels have created a fiscal nightmare for the American people. To think they can resolve this issue by punishing the faithful is as irresponsible as it is delusional.

Kansas House Speaker Mike O’Neal is opposed to the bill.
Contact: mike.oneal@house.ks.gov
REMEMBER—MIKE IS ON OUR SIDE!!!

After failing to win approval to head the Office of Legal Counsel in the Justice Department last year, Dawn Johnsen was renominated by President Obama this year. Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved her; her nomination will now go before the full Senate.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue reacted this way:

In the minds of many, on both sides of the aisle, Dawn Johnsen is considered controversial for many reasons. Of interest to the Catholic League is one issue—her anti-Catholic bigotry.

In 1988, Dawn Johnsen worked on a brief, United States Catholic Conference v. Abortion Rights Mobilization, that sought to strip the Catholic Church of its tax-exempt status. The brief could have targeted all those religions which are anti-abortion, but it did not. Instead, it singled out the Catholic Church for punishment.

I am writing today to every member of the Senate asking just one question: Are you aware that Dawn Johnsen, who will soon be voted upon by the full Senate, sought to strip the Roman Catholic Church of its tax-exempt status in 1988?

My letter is intended as a big FYI.