Catholic League president Bill Donohue looks at how the media are covering the papal visit to the U.K. thus far:

The coverage has been mixed. The Tribune newspapers, the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times, were quite fair. The extensive piece in the Washington Post was also very fair. These newspapers focused on the pope’s remarks and the reception he received, mentioning the abuse scandal but not making it the focal point.

On the other hand, the New York Times story led with the scandal, relegating what the pope had to say to the back of the article. Perhaps most telling was the fact that the gay-obsessed newspaper put the story on the pope below the fold on the first page of the “International” section: top billing was given to the discovery that monkeys first contracted AIDS 32,000 years ago. Newsday, the scandal-ridden Long Island daily, had nothing to say about what the pope had to say, but it did discover two more alleged victims; due to serious budgetary problems, the newspaper could not afford to buy a plane ticket for its reporter, so he wrote from home.

The broadcast evening news was just as mixed. ABC’s coverage was fair; NBC’s was dismissive; and CBS’s read like a “60 Minutes” indictment, never mentioning anything the pope said.

CNN.com gave space to an English homosexual who hates the Catholic Church, never mentioning that he wants to lower the age of consent for adult-child sex. The National Catholic Reporter, a dissident weekly, afforded space to a nun who refuses to identify herself as a nun, suffers from priest envy, and generally hates the Catholic Church’s teachings on sexuality.

There was a time when the elite media could be counted on to be relatively fair. Those days, however, are long gone, save for stories blaming monkeys for AIDS.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue reacts to the way British atheists are handling Pope Benedict XVI’s trip to their homeland:

The pope cited Hitler today, asking everyone to “reflect on the sobering lessons of atheist extremism of the 20th century.” Immediately, the British Humanist Association got its back up, accusing the pope of “a terrible libel against those who do not believe in God.”

The pope did not go far enough. Radical atheists like the British Humanist Association should apologize for Hitler. But they should not stop there. They also need to issue an apology for the 67 million innocent men, women and children murdered under Stalin, and the 77 million innocent Chinese killed by Mao. Hitler, Stalin and Mao were all driven by a radical atheism, a militant and fundamentally dogmatic brand of secular extremism. It was this anti-religious impulse that allowed them to become mass murderers. By contrast, a grand total of 1,394 were killed during the 250 years of the Inquisition, most all of whom were murdered by secular authorities.

Why should atheists today apologize for the crimes of others? At one level, it makes no sense: apologies should only be given by the guilty. But on the other hand, since the fanatically anti-Catholic secularists in Britain, and elsewhere, demand that the pope—who is entirely innocent of any misconduct—apologize for the sins of others, let the atheists take some of their own medicine and start apologizing for all the crimes committed in their name. It might prove alembic.

More than 50 British notables have signed a letter in the Guardian newspaper criticizing the visit to the U.K. by Pope Benedict XVI. Responding is Catholic League president Bill Donohue:

The pope is accused of (a) opposing condoms and thereby increasing the spread of AIDS (b) promoting segregated education (c) opposing abortion (d) opposing equal rights for homosexuals, and (e) failing to address the abuse of young people in the Catholic Church. These accusations deserve a response.

No one who ever followed the teachings of the Catholic Church on sexuality ever got AIDS voluntarily, but many who rejected these teachings have. Having separate Catholic schools for girls and boys has been one of the great educational achievements in the past century, providing unparalleled upward mobility for the poor and non-whites. The Catholic Church has always stood for the equal dignity of all persons, independent of sexual preference, but it will never lower its standards by putting every conceivable sexual relationship on par with marriage. No institution today is doing more to check the sexual abuse of youngsters than the Catholic Church, having learned its lesson when many seminaries lowered their standards during the sexual revolution.

Philip Pullman, of “The Golden Compass” fame (our boycott of his atheism-for-kids film worked beautifully), signed the letter. A few months ago, he said, “I hope the wretched Catholic Church will vanish entirely.” Atheist fanatic Richard Dawkins, known for charging that the Catholic Church is “the greatest force for evil in the world,” signed it as well. Gay activist Peter Tatchell, an organizer of “Protest the Pope,” has said, “Several of my friends—gay and straight, male and female—had sex with adults from the ages of nine to 13. None feel they were abused. All say it was their conscious choice and gave them great joy.”

There you have it. The pope’s leading critics are imbued with hate and even associate with advocates of child rape. And they have the nerve to point fingers at the pontiff.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the reaction of Rev. Ian Paisley to Pope Benedict XVI:

When Pope John Paul II visited the U.K. in 1982, Rev. Ian Paisley heckled him and unfurled a banner reading, “The Beast is Coming.” Now the founding member and past Moderator of the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster promises to attack Pope Benedict XVI. None of this is new, but what is not widely known is Paisley’s duplicity: he recently said he is opposed to the pope’s trip because of the failure of the Catholic Church to take cases of priestly sexual abuse seriously. Yet the record shows that his own role in dealing with such matters is disgraceful.

· In 2006, two sisters went public claiming they were previously abused by a lay preacher in Paisley’s church. One of the sisters met with Paisley and two senior ministers about this issue in 2003, only to be told that it was best to “leave this in [our] hands.”

· In 2002, a Sunday school teacher in Paisley’s church in Toronto was found guilty of sexually abusing a 13 year-old girl. Four years later, the victim’s father was livid that the offender was still a member of the church; he demanded an apology and requested a meeting with Paisley. Paisley refused to meet with him.

· In 1973, a missionary from Paisley’s church provided him with evidence that a homosexual house warden was having sex with boys in the home. Paisley ignored her plea and refused to investigate.

Paisley is not the only embarrassment. Before Gordon Brown left office as prime minister, he elevated Paisley to the House of Lords. Nice to know the Brits are still conferring titles on anti-Catholic bigots.

When Pope John Paul II made his visit, he was pelted with missiles and an arsonist armed with a gallon of petrol sought to light a fire. Given the current wave of militant atheism, we hope the authorities are well prepared to deal with these secular fanatics this time around.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the way European critics of the pope’s trip to the U.K. are behaving; the trip extends from September 16 to September 19:

The Catholic League does not exist to fend off legitimate criticism of the Catholic Church. To be specific, any of the Church’s public policy positions are fair game for critics. What we object to are intemperate and wholly unfair characterizations, along with criticism by non-Catholics of the Church’s doctrinal prerogatives. Unfortunately, much of the criticism about the papal trip emanating from the other side of the Atlantic crosses the line.

The most organized attempt to smear the pope comes from the Protest the Pope campaign. Some two dozen organizations, ranging from Atheism UK and the Gay & Lesbian Association to the National Secular Society, have launched an all-out attack on the pope and the Catholic Church. To read a sample of the commentary, click here. Some clergymen have joined the chorus, including long-time anti-Catholic bigot Rev. Ian Paisley.

When militant atheists like Richard Dawkins threaten to make a citizen’s arrest of the pope, and when gay activists like Peter Tatchell make a “documentary” about the pope to be shown on TV, then there is cause for concern. While some Brits have condemned these attacks, there needs to be a much more vocal response from responsible leaders in the U.K.

We will monitor the pope’s critics at home and abroad, providing rejoinders when necessary.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue notes several attempts to spin the truth about religion in today’s news reports:

• “The Holocaust is nothing but a superstition” opines another one of those Grand Ayatollahs from Iran, proving once again that education is no cure for evil.

• The Grand Narcissist, Stephen Hawking, strains to tell us in his new book that he’s figured out a complicated theory—which “is not a theory in the usual sense”—that conveniently confirms his longstanding atheism.

• It’s nice to know that in the home of Kings and Queens, critics of the papal trip to England are accusing the pope of governing an institutional church that is “too monarchial.”

• Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf writes an article wondering what all the fuss is about regarding the building of a mosque near Ground Zero, but never mentions the word “mosque.” Instead, he says there will be “separate prayer spaces for Muslims, Christians, Jews and men and women of other faiths.” Can’t wait to see what the Catholic “prayer space” will look like. And if someone decides to switch religions while visiting this DisneyWorld of Prayer, it will be curious to see what happens to the poor soul.

• The Hartford City Council would not dare open its sessions with a “Hail Mary” recited by a priest—that would be grounds for arrest—but they have decided to show their empathy with those who want a mosque near Ground Zero by inviting local imams to offer Islamic invocations.

The spinmeisters never fail to impress, so thoroughly have they mastered the art of lying. But to use religion as their toy is all the more disturbing.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on reports that a Florida pastor is planning to burn a copy of the Koran on 9/11:

Minister Terry Jones wants to show his anger at radical Muslims by burning a copy of the Koran on September 11. He is wrong morally, and he is literally endangering innocent lives.

The Koran is embraced by Muslims who are law-abiding men and women, as well as by terrorists. Jones knows this to be true, but somehow in his twisted understanding of Christianity, he thinks he has a right to insult and smear all Muslims. Furthermore, he is endangering innocent lives—including Americans—as Gen. David Petraeus has warned. Already, there are Muslims who have taken to the streets in Afghanistan and Indonesia.

While it would be wrong to sustain the “heckler’s veto” by giving in to those who seek to veto free speech by heckling, in this instance the “heckler’s veto” is moot: no one is in jeopardy of losing his free speech rights. What is being requested is a plea not to inflame passions needlessly by assaulting the sensibilities of Muslims worldwide.

In 1998, I criticized gay radicals who burned a copy of the Bible at Syracuse University to protest an appearance by Pat Buchanan. Now we have extremists on the right seeking to stoke the flames of bigotry against Muslims. It, too, must be criticized.

Minister Jones is more than a disgrace—he is engaged in agitprop and must be unequivocally condemned. There are plenty of legitimate ways to protest the wrongdoing that took place on September 11, 2001. Burning copies of the Koran is not one of them.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue discusses last night’s episode of “Louie” on FX:

When we got word that Louis C.K. was at it again, we had to watch last night’s show. It was painful. But was it anti-Catholic? Sure. That was the point of it. After all, the purpose of the episode was to convince elementary school kids that all this talk about Jesus dying on the Cross for our sins is pure bunk. To adults, this doesn’t matter, as no TV show is going to change their beliefs. But to boys handy with their trusty DVR, they learn (from the mother of kid Louie), “the whole thing is a bunch of malarkey.”

In fairness, the script is boring. The proverbial nun in habit shows up berating the kids about the death of Jesus; the Crucifixion is trivialized; a creepy doctor shows up describing what actually happened; a traumatized kid gets freaked out and knocks down a large crucifix, etc. In other words, most of what is portrayed is without meaning, except for the end where we learn what a crock Christianity is.

As for Jesus, he is described by the doubting mother as “a really, really nice guy who lived a long time ago and told everyone to love each other.” He must have been really nice if she said it twice. And Louis C.K. must be really obsessed with Catholicism because he can’t give it up.

If this show had any value whatsoever, it showed with stunning accuracy exactly how Hollywood sees Christianity.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the growing number of media outlets and pundits who are criticizing the Catholic Church for refusing to ordain women:

Every now and then the media go into a spasm about one or another Catholic teaching they object to, and their latest outrage is fixated on women’s ordination. They do not object that Orthodox Jews do not ordain women. They do not object that Islam has no role for female clergy. They only get upset when the Catholic Church doesn’t do what they demand. This not only goes to show how phony they are, it proves how they delight in taking another swipe at Catholicism.

I like Jack Cafferty at CNN, but does he really have the guts to slam Orthodox Jews or Islam over this issue? And if he does it now, why didn’t he include them in his commentary last night? Even better, why didn’t Jack nail Jews and Muslims and give Catholics a pass?

The New York Times has also editorialized on the subject, singling out Catholicism. TV stations have polled their viewers asking them what they think. And to think that these same people can say with a straight face that they really believe in diversity—it’s just too much to bear.

America is awash in religions, and the great thing about it is that we don’t force them to adopt the same strictures. Sadly, there are those who do believe in one-size-fits all, and if they had it in their power, they would do what comes natural to them—they would impose their secular will on all religions.

Finally, if the critics are right that the Catholic Church oppresses women because it does not permit women priests, then it should be dying and the mainline Protestant religions should be spiking. Yet the evidence shows that just the reverse is true. Guess liberals can’t get anything right these days.