On Sept. 16, Fordham University will hold a conference on “Sexual Diversity in the Catholic Church.” It is the first of a four-part series; Union Theological Seminary, Yale Divinity School and Fairfield University will also host conferences on related issues. The next one, “Pro-Queer Life,” is at Union Theological on Oct. 1.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments as follows:

It is fitting that the Catholic Church is the only religion being targeted by the dissidents. After all, the mainline Protestant denominations have succumbed to the dominant culture, so there is nothing to protest anymore. Among the speakers at the four events are Sr. Jeannine Gramick, Paul Lakeland, Dan Savage and Jamie Manson.

Gramick is known for her defense of child rapist Paul Shanley. Lakeland is known for his defense of an attempt by state lawmakers in Connecticut to strip bishops and pastors of their financial authority. Savage is known for his advice on anal sex, advising his readers not to worry about leaking from the rectum. “I’ll betcha the pope’s a** is leaking all over the throne of St. Peter right now,” he wrote in 2009. Manson is known as a lesbian activist who said last month that “a number of U.S. bishops spent their summer continuing to undermine the health and welfare” of women and children. She also touts the Fordham conference by saying, “Some panelists are heterosexual.” It is not certain how many are “queer,” the preferred word of the panelists to describe homosexuals.

Lakeland, who teaches Catholic Studies at Jesuit-run Fairfield University, is the series organizer. “In the Catholic tradition, in the Catholic church, there is the church, and there isn’t really anything else,” he says. Brilliant. It could also be said, “At the New York Times, there is the editorial board, and there isn’t really anything else.”

If a professor at Fordham or Fairfield wanted to host a conference on “Racial Diversity,” bringing in noted racists to offer an alternative perspective to the Church’s teachings, he would be kicked out.

Contact Paul Lakeland: pflakeland@fairfield.edu

Below is a statement by Catholic League president Bill Donohue:

The new Archbishop of Philadelphia, Charles Chaput, hasn’t been in office one week and already he is drawing flak from dissidents.

On September 8, the day of Archbishop Chaput’s installation, Robert Hoatson was protesting the event outside the Basilica of Saints Peter and Paul. The Philadelphia Inquirer ran a picture of him on its website, and identified him in the newspaper as a priest. What they did not say is that he is a suspended priest from New Jersey who filed a lawsuit against the Catholic Church asking to be removed from the clergy. Predictably, Chaput’s homily that day was attacked by victims’ groups and dissidents for not being sufficiently contrite about the fate of alleged victims in the archdiocese.

As soon as Chaput’s appointment was announced in July, the phony victims’ group, SNAP, held a press conference condemning him. Maureen Turlish, a nun who leads the Church-bashing group, Voice of the Faithful, lectured him on how to proceed. Still another group of malcontents, Catholics4Change, demanded that they “become part of Church leadership.” But wouldn’t that make them part of the dreaded “institutional Church” they so deplore?

These people also lie. Turlish, for instance, is fond of saying that the two Philadelphia grand jury reports on the archdiocese document “facts.” Similarly, an editorial this week in the dissident weekly, the National Catholic Reporter, condemned the last three Philly archbishops for being “complicit in hiding crimes and criminals.” Specifically, it said the archdiocese “is a place where children, mostly boys, have been raped and molested, in some cases repeatedly.” It did not use the word “allegedly,” accepting as “fact” accusations that have never been challenged in court!

What’s really driving the early animus against Chaput is his persona: he is bright, courageous and orthodox. That’s why Catholic professors like Nicholas Cafardi and David J. O’Brien are busy telling him not to address wider moral issues, especially in the upcoming presidential season. Fat chance. Guess they don’t know his steeliness.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments as follows:

On July 20, Irish Prime Minister Enda Kenny accused the Holy See of meddling in Irish affairs, citing the recently published Cloyne Report (an Irish government document on priestly sexual abuse in the Diocese of Cloyne) as evidence; he also said that attempts by the Holy See to “frustrate” the Irish inquiry occurred “as little as three years ago.”

All of this is a lie: there was no interference; the Cloyne Report never made such an accusation; and nothing has happened in the last three years to warrant these charges.

To be sure, there were points of contention between what the Irish government requested and what the Holy See thought judicious. At most, this constitutes uncooperativeness; it is a lie to say it merits the accusation of “interference.” Also, anyone who can read knows that the Cloyne Report never even suggested that the Holy See sought to meddle in Irish affairs. Lastly, when Kenny was asked to provide evidence of attempts by the Holy See to “frustrate” the inquiry in the past three years, the best he could do was to assert that his remark was based on “anger and frustration.” So that gives him the right to lie about the Holy See?

The fact of the matter is that the Irish government lagged behind efforts by the Catholic Church to remedy sexual abuse. In 2008, the Church’s Elliott Report took the Diocese of Cloyne to task for not following the 1996 guidelines on this issue that were issued by the Irish Bishops. Indeed, while the Irish government was still debating what to do about mandatory reporting of these crimes, the Catholic Church already had its guidelines in place. Had Bishop John Magee followed them in Cloyne (and had he followed canon law), things would have been different.

The Irish make much of a 1997 letter by the Apostolic Nuncio in Ireland seeming to weaken the 1996 guidelines, but the Holy See has effectively rebutted that interpretation. Besides, only one clear case of abuse in Cloyne was recorded after the letter appeared. In short, the Irish need to hit the reset button before they get themselves in any deeper.

For an excellent extended treatment of this issue, click here.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments as follows:

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is receiving oblique cover from left-wing Protestant leaders for his 9/11 clergy gag rule. While the leaders nominally disagree with the mayor, they save their real salvos for those who have been critical of Bloomberg’s censorial act.

Tim King, the communications director for the left-wing group, Sojourners, characterizes Bloomberg’s decision as “understandable but regrettable.” His choice of words reflects his real interest in pinning the blame for the controversy not on Bloomberg, but on his critics. “And to those religious leaders who are stirring up a media controversy about this decision…you are showing exactly why Mayor Bloomberg didn’t want you there in the first place.”

In other words, the Mayor of the City of New York insults hundreds of millions of Americans of all faiths by banning the clergy and First Responders from the 9/11 memorial ceremonies, and those who object are responsible for “stirring up a media controversy.” But when Sojourners holds their press conference tomorrow on this issue, somehow we are to believe that they will not be adding to the controversy. Guess the peace-makers are traveling to New York with their healing kit.

It’s time to stop the lying. Those who blame the critics of religious intolerance for “stirring up a media controversy” have taken the side of those who promote it. Sojourners has laid anchor with Bloomberg.

Contact Tim King: media@sojo.net

Catholic League president Bill Donohue looks at who is supporting New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s 9/11 gag rule:

It is nearly impossible to find anyone who supports Mayor Bloomberg’s gag rule censoring the clergy and First Responders from speaking at the 9/11 ceremonies this Sunday. One exception is a woman who lost her husband in the attacks, and who is identified as a liaison between the mayor and the victims’ families. Her name is Christy Ferer. But she is not exactly a go-between: she works for Bloomberg. Moreover, she used to date him.

“There are so many faiths that would have to be present,” Ferer recently said. “How do you not insult somebody?” Better to insult everyone equally, she concludes. But not exactly: no group of New Yorkers is more insulted than Catholics. Not only is Archbishop Timothy Dolan banned (along with other clergy), no First Responders are allowed to speak (yet the vast majority of those who died on 9/11 were Catholic).

Ferer’s ties with her ex-boyfriend have paid dividends. Besides being a Special Assistant to Bloomberg today, she previously served on the Advisory Council Board for the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation and is past Commissioner of the Port Authority. She also served on the transition committee for Mayor-elect Bloomberg. Her husband who was killed on 9/11, Neil Levin, was also a longtime friend of Bloomberg, and a former director of the Port Authority.

Many members of victims’ families have previously complained that Ferer does not reach out to them, and there is no evidence that she consulted with them regarding the propriety of censoring the clergy and First Responders from the 9/11 events. She says she reads their e-mails, but this is a poor substitute for dialogue. In other words, we need to know the names of those whom Bloomberg and Ferer consulted with before the decision to ban the clergy and First Responders was made.

Contact Bloomberg’s Press Secretary, Stu Loeser: sloeser@cityhall.nyc.gov