Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the Christmas tree controversies hitting the states:

In Wisconsin, for the first time in years, they are reverting back to calling the Capitol Rotunda Christmas tree a Christmas tree: it was called a Christmas tree for 70 years until it was renamed a Holiday tree in the mid-1980s.

In Rhode Island, Governor Lincoln Chafee has decided to continue the politics of intolerance by calling the Capitol Rotunda Christmas tree a Holiday tree

Annie Laurie Gaylor of the Madison, Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation explains why the Christmas tree in Wisconsin was rebranded the Holiday tree: “Calling it a Holiday tree was meant to be inclusive.” Ironically, it has proven to be divisive—the uproar is in Rhode Island, not Wisconsin.

According to the Providence Journal, 87 percent of the people in Rhode Island prefer to call the Christmas tree a Christmas tree; only 8 percent think it should be called a Holiday tree. In Wisconsin, there is no discord: calling the Christmas tree a Christmas tree has brought people together. Which is why Rhode Island should learn a lesson in civility and community by calling its Christmas tree a Christmas tree.

By the way, what holiday does the Holiday tree represent? Try asking Governor Chafee’s spokesperson, Christine Hunsinger.

Contact: Christine.Hunsinger@governor.ri.gov

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on an award given to playwright and left-wing activist Tony Kushner for his “socially responsible work”:

Jews know about Tony Kushner’s “socially responsible work” by citing his many campaigns against Israel; he accuses it of engaging in “ethnic cleansing.” Catholics know of his “socially responsible work” by pointing to his defense of anti-Catholic plays, as well as his condemnation of Catholics who demonstrate against bigotry (he even took to the streets to condemn their First Amendment rights). Oh, yes, Catholics also know him as the man who blamed Pope John Paul II for the murder of Matthew Shepard. Quite a portfolio of “socially responsible work.”

Bestowing Kushner with the award is the Puffin Foundation and the Nation Institute. The Puffin Foundation says it exists to provide grants to “artists and art organizations who are often excluded from mainstream opportunities.”

It is not known what mainstream opportunity has ever been denied to Kushner. Ditto for last year’s co-winner, the proud president of Planned Parenthood, Cecile Richards. And how about the self-described communist, Van Jones, who won in 2008? Obama gave him a gig in the White House, didn’t he? As for the Nation Institute, Kushner is a long-time contributor to the Nation, the magazine (tied to the Institute) that once heralded Stalin for his “socially responsible work.”

In 1994, Kushner wrote a piece for the Nation that blamed capitalism for “poverty, war, alienation, environmental destruction, colonialism, unequal development, boom/bust cycles, private property, individualism, commodity fetishism, the fetishization of the body, the fetishization of violence, guns, drugs, child abuse, underfunded and bad education.” He did not blame it for AIDS. This is surprising given that he hailed socialism for promoting “homosexual liberation” (guess he never learned what Castro did to homosexuals like himself). In any event, Kushner has a moral obligation to give back his prize—no self-respecting socialist would ever cash a check for $100,000.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments as follows:

On November 18, I wrote to Michael B. Keegan, president of People For the American Way (PFAW), challenging him to a debate. I did so in response to his challenge the day before to Brooklyn Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio: he invited DiMarzio to participate in a public forum on the issue of the Brooklyn Museum of Art’s “Hide/Seek” exhibition that features a vile video of ants running all over Jesus on the Cross. Bishop DiMarzio had asked that the video not be included in the exhibition. Because I led the charge against the video last year when it was shown at the Smithsonian—it was pulled after we put public pressure on the museum—I thought it only appropriate that Keegan debate me.

I closed my letter by saying the following: “Please be advised that I am in a win-win situation and you are in a lose-lose. If you say yes, you will lose the debate. If you say no, I will tell the entire world.”

Yesterday, in PFAW’S “Right Wing Watch” section, came the reply, written for Keegan by Josh Glasstetter. Here’s what was said:

“In fact, debating Donohue would be the lose-lose.” Got that right.

“Donohue is a press hound of the worst sort who feeds off contrived controversies.” Thanks to PFAW and their ilk, I don’t have to contrive anything (although it is true that I am a press hound of the worst sort).

“It would be a mistake to provide any more oxygen to Donohue’s one-man challenge.” One-man? How do they know I wouldn’t bring an army?

Here’s their most manly statement of all: “In another century, a guy like Donohue might have challenged us to a duel.” Might have?

Contact Miranda Blue, Communications Manager: media@pfaw.org

Today, dozens of bars, barber shops and beauty parlors in the Kansas City, Missouri area are being sent copies of the Catholic League ad that the Kansas City Star refused to run on October 30.

This is the twelfth and final segment of the Kansas City area to receive the ad that the Star would like to censor. Previously, we hit (1) every Catholic church, as well as all the nuns, order priests and brothers, (2) every Catholic lay organization, (3) all Catholic schools and colleges, (4) over 100 Protestant churches, (5) Orthodox Christian, Jewish and Muslim groups, (6) private schools, (7) public schools, (8) private and public colleges, (9) government officials, (10) all Chamber of Commerce officials and over 150 local businesses and (11) more than 80 civic associations. To read the ad, click here.

Contact Star publisher Mi-Ai Parrish: mparrish@kcstar.com

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the upcoming showdown between the Obama administration’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Catholic Church:

On December 1, the House Committee on Oversight & Government Reform will hold a hearing titled, “HHS and the Catholic Church: Examining the Politicization of Grants.” At issue is the decision by the Obama administration to deny a grant that the Catholic Church routinely receives providing for relief to the victims of human trafficking; the ruling was made despite an independent review board’s finding that gave high scores to the Church’s program.

The Church was denied the grant because it refuses to offer abortion referrals. Many Catholics, including the Catholic League, believe that the politicized nature of the decision to defund the program demands a hearing, and on Thursday we will get it. Since 2006, the Church has helped more than 2,700 trafficking victims, most of whom are women and children.

Although the issue of abortion referral is on the table, the real issue is something more sinister: the pro-abortion community, which is supporting the Obama administration’s push to mandate that private healthcare plans provide coverage for sterilization and contraceptive services, has its real sights set on mandated abortion coverage. That’s why there has been an editorial and op-ed explosion in recent weeks calling for Obama to stand up to the bishops. Everyone knows that even minimum-wage earners can afford contraceptives, so this issue hardly explains the heated rhetoric. What mandated contraceptive services accomplishes is that it greases the slide towards abortion coverage.

Those who do not ascribe to the vision of sexuality entertained by “progressives,” but are nonetheless not terribly bothered by the push for contraceptive services in healthcare plans, need to wake up and smell the odor before the “progressives” start racing for home. We’re at the top of the stretch right now, which is why this hearing is critical.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue responds to a New York Times op-ed page advertisement placed today by Catholics for Choice:

“Choice” has no normative value absent an object, but even then it may carry no moral weight. Choosing chocolate over vanilla is a choice without moral consequence. But choosing to abort one’s baby clearly has consequences, both for the woman and her child: for the woman, they are traumatic; for the baby, they are deadly. No Catholic can support such a choice. Indeed, in this instance, the very name “Catholics for Choice” is an oxymoron.

Ironically, the Catholics for Choice advertisement in the New York Times focuses exclusively on limiting the choices of Catholics: it wants to deny Catholic institutions the right to a religious exemption from healthcare services they cannot in good conscience countenance.

Here’s another irony: there really is no organization called Catholics for Choice. It has no members, and is in fact nothing more than a well-funded letterhead, sponsored by the establishment. Over the years, its biggest and most consistent donor has been the Ford Foundation.

One more irony: bigotry has always stained the Ford legacy. Henry Ford was a notorious anti-Semite, and today the Ford Foundation is the most generous donor of anti-Catholic causes. Indeed, the Ford Foundation is so busy working against Catholics that it is currently funding the vile “ants-on-the-crucifix” video at the Brooklyn Museum of Art.

Contact: office-of-communications@fordfoundation.org

Today, more than 80 civic associations in the Kansas City, Missouri area are being sent copies of the Catholic League ad that the Kansas City Star refused to run on October 30.

This is the eleventh segment of the Kansas City area to receive the ad that the Star would like to censor. Previously, we hit (1) every Catholic church, as well as all the nuns, order priests and brothers, (2) every Catholic lay organization, (3) all Catholic schools and colleges, (4) over 100 Protestant churches, (5) Orthodox Christian, Jewish and Muslim groups, (6) private schools, (7) public schools, (8) private and public colleges, (9) government officials and (10) all Chamber of Commerce officials and over 150 local businesses. To read the ad, click here.

Contact Star publisher Mi-Ai Parrish: mparrish@kcstar.com

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments as follows:

No segment of the population has been inundated with more bogus lawsuits than Catholic priests. This latest one out of Rhode Island is hard to top.

Some guy from Pawtucket says he was molested by a member of the New England Province of the Brothers of the Sacred Heart when he was in the seventh grade. But there are just a few problems with his tale:

• the alleged abuse took place more than a half-century ago
• the alleged offender is dead
• the accuser never reported the offense to the authorities
• the accuser never contacted the religious order
• the school where this allegedly happened is closed
• the accuser says he never remembered the alleged abuse until he watched a TV show about molestation in 2008
• the accuser says the Penn State case has added to his pain
• the accuser says he doesn’t trust people
• the accuser has been married seven times
• the accuser has had 82 jobs

His counsel, Mitchell Garabedian, is one of America’s premier steeple-chasing lawyers; he is also utterly shameless and has an embarrassing track record in court.

But it’s Thanksgiving, so let’s look at the bright side: it suggests the Church-haters are running out of “victims” to exploit.

Today, all Chamber of Commerce officials and over 150 local businesses in the Kansas City, Missouri area are being sent copies of the Catholic League ad that the Kansas City Star refused to run on October 30.

This is the tenth segment of the Kansas City area to receive the ad that the Star would like to censor. Previously, we hit (1) every Catholic church, as well as all the nuns, order priests and brothers, (2) every Catholic lay organization, (3) all Catholic schools and colleges, (4) over 100 Protestant churches, (5) Orthodox Christian, Jewish and Muslim groups, (6) private schools, (7) public schools, (8) private and public colleges and (9) government officials. To read the ad, click here.

Contact Star publisher Mi-Ai Parrish: mparrish@kcstar.com

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the rights of priests:

When it comes to accusations of priestly sexual abuse, the accused is never publicly identified—he is simply listed as John Doe 101. But this isn’t enough to satisfy some: they want bishops to publish the names of all accused priests, even if there has never been a conviction, and even if he is dead. Moreover, every accused serial killer and maniacal terrorist merits immediate attention from civil libertarians, and their defense is uniformly applauded in liberal circles. Why should priests be treated any different?

The Boston Globe ran a huge front-page story on Sunday taking Archbishop Sean O’Malley to task for not publishing the names of order priests who have been accused of abuse; as members of religious orders, they are not directly under his purview. By listing the names of accused diocesan priests, which he is not legally obliged to do, O’Malley made what he thought would be received as a goodwill gesture. Instead, the Globe saw blood in the water and went for the kill. Never once has this newspaper taken on the public school establishment, or any other religion, demanding the same outcome.

Because lawyers for Kansas City-St. Joseph Bishop Robert Finn agreed to a diversion—he will meet monthly with a local prosecutor in exchange for prosecution—some are saying it implies he is guilty. Yet Clay County prosecutor Dan White admitted, “I have the charge, but do I have conviction based upon the evidence I had?” Good point. Now some are saying that Finn’s lawyers are looking for loopholes in the child porn statutes. I hope they are—hopefully they will exploit every legal loophole there is. Why would it be Christian to do otherwise?

It’s time to level the playing field. Going beyond what the law requires should be taboo, and hiring only the toughest lawyers money can buy should be the norm. To argue otherwise is to argue for injustice. Lay Catholics, in particular, should be brazenly unapologetic.