Rep. Rosa DeLauro has written to Timothy Cardinal Dolan asking him to mobilize the bishops in a campaign to combat poverty. Catholic League president Bill Donohue responds as follows:

Rep. DeLauro is the enemy of the poor, thus she has no moral leg to stand on. She has worked to kill school vouchers for children with disabilities and has voted against scholarship grants for African American students in D.C. But she is a big champion of abortion, including abortions where the baby is 80 percent born; she has even voted to fund abortion with federal dollars.

DeLauro’s Catholic credentials include authoring a “Statement of Principles” in 2006, signed by 55 Catholic Democrats. The document made the argument that it is entirely legitimate to be a Catholic in good standing and promote abortion rights. In 2007, DeLauro was one of 18 Catholic Democrats to criticize the pope for his remarks on this subject.

Not signing DeLauro’s letter, but signing a recent one in which they accused Rep. Paul Ryan of “distorting church teaching to give moral cover” to his proposed budget were Nicholas Cafardi, Daniel Maguire, Marie Dennis and Stephen Schneck. No sooner had Archbishop Charles Chaput moved from Denver to Philadelphia when Cafardi surfaced saying “Chaput would be well-advised to leave politics aside.” But now Cafardi wants the pro-life archbishop to get involved in politics by lobbying for welfare. Maguire is so in love with abortion rights that he has condemned Mother Teresa for her yeoman work, branding her “a firm defender of male dominance.” Dennis is co-president of Pax Christi International, an organization that has blasted the pro-life work of the Susan B. Anthony List. And in 2009, Schneck signed a letter praising the nomination of Kathleen Sebelius (he has since called for her resignation).

We would be remiss if we didn’t notice the curious relationship between DeLauro and the Catholic News Service which arranged the interview.

Contact DeLauro’s chief of staff, Beverly Pheto: beverly.pheto@mail.house.gov

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on a story in today’s Indianapolis Star that has some people wondering:

The term “a woman scorned” is an apt description of those elderly Catholic gals who like to play dress up and pretend they’re priests. The latest poor soul is Maria Thornton McClain, a 71-year old former nun who has declared herself to be a priest. But if she is in need of help, what kind of assistance is available for those who run the Indianapolis Star? They put this Father Maria hoax on page 1 of the B Section; the website features 17 pictures of her and her fans.

“The Roman Catholic Church does not recognize the ordination of women, but more and more women are answering the call as part of a reform movement,” the paper says. However, it is also true that the Indianapolis Star does not recognize the installation of cub reporters as Star journalists. But what if more and more cub reporters were answering the call as part of a reform movement and started promoting themselves to the public as if they were employees of the Star? Would the newspaper treat them as legitimate? Or would they call 911?

A spokesman for CORPUS, a group that actually thinks Maria is a priest, is quoted as saying, “we have to stand up for inclusivity.” He’s wrong. As a matter of fact, the requirements to join Maria’s “priesthood” are quite restrictive: women 50 and older have to have a theology degree and those under 50 have to have a Master’s degree in theology or divinity. Music majors take note—you can take a walk.

We would report this blatant age discrimination policy to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission if we thought there were any young Catholic females who want to join Maria’s camp. But there aren’t. Priest envy, as everyone knows, is confined exclusively to old Catholic women.

Contact the president and publisher of the newspaper: karen.crotchfelt@indystar.com

Catholic League president Bill Donohue responds to critics of the statement on religious liberty that was released last week by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops:

We expect it when Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State accuses the bishops of seeking to “maintain their privileged status.” Similarly, we are not surprised when a left-wing blog, ThinkProgress, associated with the Center for American Progress, says the Catholic Church wants to “impose its public services” on the public. Rabid Catholic-basher Sarah Posner shocked no one when she said the bishops’ document was “even more pointed and hostile than previous statements.” It was laughable, but entirely predictable, that Stephen Prothero would use his CNN post to question the right of the bishops to speak for Catholics, while invoking the anti-Catholic front group Catholics for Choice as a legitimate voice!

What was most disturbing, however, was to see a Catholic media outlet, Commonweal, take after the bishops with a vengeance. An editorial on the subject said “the tenor of the bishops’ statement runs the risk of making this into a partisan issue during a presidential election in which the leaders of one party have made outlandish claims about a ‘war on religion’ or a ‘war against the Catholic Church.’”

This says it all. Commonweal’s first allegiance is not the defense of religious liberty—it is the defense of the Obama administration. But as Timothy Cardinal Dolan said so well, the bishops did not pick this fight. Nor did they pick the timing. Obama did.

Contrast Commonweal’s boilerplate response with that of Commentary, a Jewish publication. Jonathan S. Tobin called the bishops’ statement “an important document that is neither partisan nor an attempt to inflame sentiments on divisive issues.” He urged Jews to stand with the bishops. Too bad the Catholics at Commonweal can’t find it within themselves to do likewise.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue responds to the statement released today by U.S. bishops [click here] calling for a religious freedom campaign:

This is the most comprehensive and cogent defense of religious liberty ever drafted by the bishops in the United States. Erudite and wide-ranging, it is a clarion call to the Catholic community, and beyond, to get serious about religious rights, both at home and abroad.

Internationally, the declaration calls attention to the “assassinations, bombings of churches, torching of orphanages,” and other acts of violence against Christians. At home, it spells out the threats to religious liberty at all levels of government.

At the federal level, the Obama administration’s redefinition of what constitutes a religion is alarming, and its determination to force Catholic non-profits to fund abortion-inducing drugs is equally ominous.

State immigration laws such as those in Alabama that make it illegal for priests to minister to illegal aliens are obscene. Just as draconian are attempts to limit the authority of bishops by having the legislature determine the locus of decision-making; this was tried in Connecticut.

Cities like Boston and San Francisco have punished Catholic foster care and adoptive services because Catholic agencies don’t approve of gay marriage. New York City is no better when it seeks to deprive poor inner-city minorities of using empty public schools on Sundays for services.

Perhaps most profoundly, the bishops reaffirmed Catholic teaching on unjust laws. “An unjust law cannot be obeyed,” they said. This was a clear signal to those at all levels of government that Catholics are prepared to exercise civil disobedience, if necessary. Don’t push us.

The bishops have chosen a two-week period from June 21 to July 4 as a time to rally Catholics to participate in this religious liberty campaign. They have the unreserved support of the Catholic League.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the film adaptation of “The Three Stooges,” which opens tomorrow:

In the 1950s, Hollywood generally avoided crude fare and was respectful of religion. Today it specializes in crudity and trashes Christianity, especially Catholicism. Enter the “The Three Stooges.” This movie is not just another remake: it is a cultural marker of sociological significance, and what it says about the way we’ve changed is not encouraging.

Peter and Bobby Farrelly have been working on this movie since 1999. According to David Germain, an AP movie critic, the brothers “never wanted to tinker with the Stooges.” Dennis Lim in the New York Times agrees, saying the brothers “strove for absolute fidelity to the original.” CBS News also cites their “loyalty to the subject.”

They’re all wrong. Yes, the slapstick is there, along with the groans, pokes, thumps, and the like. But the TV show never mocked nuns or showed infants urinating in the face of the Stooges. The film does.

The Stooges are depicted seeking to raise money for their orphanage; it is run by habit-wearing, stereotypical nuns. One of the sisters is played by swimsuit model Kate Upton; she is shown wearing a “nun bikini” with a large rosary around her neck. Another nun, Sister Mary-Mengele, named after the Nazi war criminal, is played by Seinfeld creator Larry David.

In 2009, David proved what he thinks about Catholics when he was shown going to the bathroom in a Catholic home splattering urine on a picture of Jesus (it was his own show). Last night he said to Conan O’Brien that dressing as a nun in the film makes it easy to understand why nuns are “so mean.” He explains, “You know, the outfits might have something to do with that. Forget about the fact that they never have sex. If you gave me a choice of no sex or having to wear that outfit the rest of my life, I would definitely take the no sex.”

Contact Chris Petrikin, SVP Corporate Communications at Twentieth Century Fox: chris.petrikin@fox.com

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the findings of the 2011 Annual Report on priestly sexual abuse that was released by the bishops’ conference; the survey was done by a Georgetown institute:

The headlines should read, “Abuse Problem Near Zero Among Priests,” but that is not what is being reported.

According to the 2011 Official Catholic Directory, there are 40,271 priests in the U.S. The report says there were 23 credible accusations of the sexual abuse of a minor made against priests for incidences last year. Of that number, 9 were deemed credible by law enforcement. Which means that 99.98% of priests nationwide had no such accusation made against them last year. Nowhere is this being reported.

Here are more data from the report that won’t appear elsewhere: almost all the offenses involve homosexuality. Indeed, 16% of the credible allegations made against priests who work in dioceses or eparchies, and 6% of religious order priests, involved pedophilia. In the former category, 82% of the alleged victims were male; in the latter, the figure is 94%. In other words, we are not talking about kids as victims, and we are not talking about females: we are talking about postpubescent males who were allegedly violated by adult males. That’s called homosexuality.

When did these alleged offenses take place? Overall, 68% took place between 1960 and 1984; 1975-1979 being the most common period (among religious order priests, 33% took place before 1960, and another 40% took place between 1960-1980). In 75% of all the cases, the accused priest is either dead or has been dismissed.

Since more than 10% of the credible allegations were found to be false or unsubstantiated, it makes one wonder how many of the total number of accusations are bogus. The bishops should commission a study of those priests whose reputations have been ruined by cash-hungry liars and their rapacious lawyers; the looters should also be studied. The Catholic League would be happy to make a generous donation.

From April 12 – 19, the University of Minnesota Duluth will host a series of events commemorating the Holocaust. Regrettably, we have learned that some of them promise to unfairly portray the role of the Catholic Church.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue has prepared a five-page report responding to what is publicly known about these events [to read it click here]. Copies are being sent to the President of the University of Minnesota; the Chancellor at the University of Minnesota Duluth; the panelists involved in the events; select professors on campus; the student newspaper; student groups; the media; and leaders in both the Catholic and Jewish communities in Duluth.

All we want is for intellectual honesty to prevail. What we abhor is political propaganda, especially as it serves to undermine good Catholic-Jewish relations.

Contact University of Minnesota Duluth Chancellor Lendley Black: chan@d.umn.edu

On April 3, Catholic News Service published a story on an internal memo from the bishops on ObamaCare. Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on it today:

The more the bishops study this issue, the more resolved they are in opposing ObamaCare. At the heart of the bishops’ objections is the contrived and unjust way the Obama administration defines a religious organization; it grants an exemption only to what it deems is a religious entity. In point of fact, it is the ACLU that is really dictating to Catholics what passes as a religious institution.

In 2000, the California Contraceptive Equity Law was passed. In it there is a provision defining what qualifies as a religious employer, and it was written by the ACLU. Besides noting that the institution must be a non-profit, the exact qualifying language is as follows:

• “The inculcation of religious values is the purpose of the entity”
• “The entity primarily employs persons who share the religious tenets of the entity”
• “The entity serves primarily persons who share the religious tenets of the entity”

The Health and Human Services edict forcing Catholic institutions to provide for abortion-inducing drugs in their insurance coverage also allows an exemption for groups it deems religious. Besides noting the non-profit status, the exact qualifying language is as follows:

• “Has the inculcation of religious values as its purpose”
• “Primarily employs persons who share its religious tenets”
• “Primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets”

Having written a Ph.D. dissertation and two books on the ACLU, I can say unequivocally that the ACLU has long been an enemy of religious liberty. Indeed, when it was founded in 1920 by Roger Baldwin (whom I interviewed in 1978), it listed all the provisions of the First Amendment among its first ten goals. Not among them was religious liberty. And these are the same folks that Obama turns to in his war on Catholics.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue replies to an editorial in today’s New York Times on human trafficking:

When an agency of the bishops’ conference was awarded a five-year grant in 2006 to fight human trafficking, the proposal explicitly said that no funds would be spent on “activities that would be contrary to our moral convictions and religious beliefs.” At the end of last year, when the bishops sought to renew their grant, their proposal was awarded a score of 89 by an independent review board at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). But it was subsequently denied by political appointees, despite the fact that two other organizations with scores of 69 and 74 were given a grant.

None of this is mentioned in the Times editorial. Instead, it sides with a judge who ruled last month on a case filed three years ago that the old contract was unconstitutional because it allowed the bishops “to impose religiously based restrictions on the expenditure of taxpayer funds.”

One of the persons who established the HHS program, Steven Wagner, said a few months ago that none of the organizations that initially sought funding wanted to provide for abortion. Indeed, he said the program was founded with the understanding that it was “totally inappropriate” to see abortion as a remedy to women in need.

At work here is the Times’ insatiable appetite for abortion rights, and its growing hostility to religious liberty. Nowhere in the Constitution is abortion mentioned—this “right” was invented out of whole cloth; religious liberty, on the other hand, is enshrined in the First Amendment. One wonders whether the Times respects constitutional law anymore.

When the Times says the bishops’ contract was not renewed because they were “unwilling to meet the needs of trafficking victims,” it grossly insults the bishops and denigrates women. Helping to kill the child of an exploited woman is not meeting her needs—it is exploiting her even further.

A Gallup poll published yesterday found that between 73 and 80 percent of the public consider the following issues to be either extremely important or very important in this year’s presidential election campaign: healthcare; unemployment; the federal budget deficit and national debt; international issues, including national defense and terrorism; and gas prices. But only 44 percent answered that way when asked about government policies concerning birth control.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue offered his thoughts on the data:

There is a reason why few care about government policies concerning birth control—the issue is a non-starter. Anyone who wants contraception can get it either inexpensively or for free, and no one running for president is threatening to change things. So why ask the question? The goal, clearly, is to take what is primarily a First Amendment right to religious liberty and turn it into a battle over the pill. When the public is asked about the right to a religious exemption, or the right to choose among competing insurance plans, the results are quite different.

Here’s a thought experiment. Suppose there is a gay gene, and suppose prospective parents can learn whether a gay gene is present in their unborn baby. Now suppose a president proposes that employee insurance carriers, including religious non-profits, must cover abortions in those instances where prospective parents elect to abort their gay-gene carrying unborn baby.

There are several issues here for a survey to consider: preventive health care; the First Amendment right to religious liberty; the public funding of abortion; and the intentional weeding out of the homosexual population. Now if the issue were framed as a debate over the propriety of the government to spend public funds for preventive health care, who would agree that this is an accurate way to pose the question?

Get it? It’s time to stop playing the birth-control card and start addressing federal encroachment on the religious rights of Americans.