Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on an editorial featured on the website of the National Catholic Reporter (NCR):

It’s been obvious for a long time, but now it is official: the National Catholic Reporter rejects the teachings of the Catholic Church on sexuality. In an editorial titled, “NCR Endorses Call for a New Sexual Ethic,” it supports retired Australian Bishop Geoffrey Robinson’s plea for the Church to change its teachings on sexuality.

Bishop Robinson wrote a book a few years ago called Confronting Power and Sex in the Catholic Church. Here is what the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference said about it in 2010: “Catholics believe that the Church, founded by Christ, is endowed by him with a teaching office which endures through time. This is why the Church’s Magisterium teaches the truth authoritatively in the name of Christ. The book casts doubt upon these teachings. This leads in turn to the questioning of Catholic teaching on, among other things, the nature of Tradition, the inspiration of the Holy Scripture, the infallibility of the Councils and the Pope, the authority of the Creeds, the nature of the ministerial priesthood and central elements of the Church’s moral teachings.”

No wonder Robinson is NCR’s hero. Ten years ago, I said on “Hardball” that neither NCR writer Tom Roberts (he is now the editor-at-large of NCR), nor the weekly newspaper, “believe in anything the Catholic Church says on sexuality” (Roberts was on the show with me). When I continued to talk, Mike Barnicle, who was sitting in for Chris Matthews, jumped in and said, “Wait, Bill, please. Tom, take it up. I mean, you just got whacked across the face.” Roberts replied, “I’m not going to take that up.” But how could he? In short, nothing has changed in the last decade save for NCR making it formal: the Church is wrong on sexuality.

Need any further proof? On p. 21 of the March 30-April 12 edition of NCR it has a full-page ad by the pro-abortion and anti-Catholic group, Catholics for Choice (CFC). It wouldn’t accept a dime from a racist group (nor should it), but it has no problem cashing a check from CFC. It’s time the newspaper changed its name to the National Reporter.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on an article by Kathleen Kennedy Townsend posted yesterday on The Atlantic:

I spent my St. Patrick’s Day marching in the parade up New York’s Fifth Avenue, and then drank beer with my friends. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend spent her St. Patrick’s Day at a conference attended by homosexuals, lesbians, and men/women with new genitals. I had a good time.

Kathleen is confused. She says the Catholic Church’s teachings “encourage bigotry and harm.” She doesn’t cite a single example, so she obviously meant some other religion. She also says that the conference was put on by a Catholic organization called New Ways Ministry. Again, she is confused—there is no Catholic group by that name (on St. Patrick’s Day last year the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops reaffirmed that New Ways Ministry is not a Catholic organization). To top things off, she says that two female priests gave her a special blessing at the conference. More confusion: my religion does not have female priests. All three errors of fact were made in the first six sentences, which is why I didn’t go any further.

I am at a loss to know what the source of Kathleen’s confusion is. This wouldn’t be so bad if she didn’t have that sterling Kennedy name.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments as follows:

Last week, Donald Cardinal Wuerl was attacked by Catholic writer George Neumayr in a piece that was posted on the website of The American Spectator (TAS). It did not receive much attention, which is why I ignored it. But now Neumayr has struck again, this time in response to a complaint registered by Wuerl’s communications director, Chieko Noguchi, with TAS.

Neumayr alleges that a priest in Cardinal Wuerl’s archdiocese was put on leave for denying communion to a lesbian at a funeral mass. His version has been contested by the Washington archdiocese [click here]: what led to the sanctions were “credible allegations” regarding the priest’s “intimidating behavior toward parish staff and others.” Even if Neumayr were right, his condemnation of Cardinal Wuerl in the vilest terms is inexcusable.

Neumayr says Wuerl is one of those “cufflinked cardinals” who “worry not about punishment in the next world but slights in this one”; their goal, he says, is to curry favor with the “Pretty People.” Worse, he has the audacity to put the cardinal on notice, exclaiming that “Wuerl can only earn the red of his rich robes through a willingness to endure the blood of Jesus Christ’s martyrdom.” Neumayr is not above wallowing in the dirt: he refers to the Washington archbishop as “Wuerl the girl.” And in his latest screed, he comes completely unhinged when he charges that Cardinal Wuerl has “exposed the Holy Eucharist to sacrilege.”

I have never met George Neumayr, but it is clear that he is a right-wing fanatic, a man whose dogmatism is as scary as the authoritarians on the left. On the other hand, I have known Cardinal Wuerl for about 25 years, and I have nothing but respect for him. When I was a professor in Pittsburgh, it was Pittsburgh Bishop Donald Wuerl who got me involved in the Catholic League. Unlike those who hit below the belt and then claim victim status (Neumayr says Noguchi’s phone call to TAS has created “troubles” for him), Wuerl is a real man. That’s the kind of person I like, not the girly-type who hit-and-run and then whine when confronted.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on Madonna:

Even her fan base knows that she ages more like an aluminum can of beer than a vintage Cabernet. Madonna’s new CD, MDNA, isn’t breaking any records, and one of her flashy singles, “Girl Gone Wild,” didn’t make the Billboard 100; one critic, Chris Willman, even called it “the worst single she’s ever released.” He was too kind.

The video of “Girl Gone Wild” shows the 53-year-old tramping around in black hot pants and stiletto heels while gyrating with well-greased topless guys adorned in tight black pants. The homoerotic show is so vulgar that YouTube says the video is not fit for those under the age of 18. YouTube has even asked Madonna to recut a video making it appropriate for the teeny boppers. Good luck.

She is what she is. Which means she is more than obscene—she’s a Catholic basher. “Girl Gone Wild” begins with Madonna reciting the first few lines of “The Act of Contrition.” She must know it’s Lent. Then she prances around to the backdrop of a light-show configured to resemble a cross. The guy who is shown wearing a crown of thorns is no doubt meant as another Easter present.

The CD also features “I’m a Sinner.” With lyrics such as “I’m a sinner, I like it that way,” Madonna makes it clear that she always has Catholicism on her mind: “Hail Mary full of grace” is followed by a quip about Jesus, St. Christopher and St. Anthony.

Madonna likes narcotics. She admits that MDNA was chosen to reference both her name and the drug MDMA; the line from “I’m a Sinner” about “magic dust” was dropped to refer to the PCP drug by that name.

The open-minded gang will not object to any of this. In their moral universe, Catholic bashing is cool; homosexual themes are beautiful; and drugs are fun. But there is one thing that Madonna does while performing “Girl Gone Wild” that will tick them off: she is shown smoking a cigarette.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue reviews Archbishop Charles Chaput’s new book, available as an e-book, A Heart on Fire: Catholic Witness and the Next America (it is available for 99 cents at Amazon and Barnes and Noble):

This is the right book by the right author at the right time. Archbishop Chaput calls our attention to the growing hostility to religion in public life. “In government, the media, academia, in the business community and in the wider culture,” he says, “many of our leaders no longer seem to regard religious faith as a healthy force.” Indeed, “The America emerging in the next several decades is likely to be much less friendly to Christian faith than anything in our country’s past.” He is particularly concerned about the way this “new orthodoxy” is impacting young people.

It would be wrong to conclude that Archbishop Chaput is demonizing the elites. No, there is a lot of blame to go around. “We can blame the mass media, or the academy, or science, or special-interest groups for creating the environment we now face,” he writes. “But we Christians—including we Catholics—helped shape it with our eagerness to fit in, our distractions and overconfidence, and our own lukewarm faith.”

The e-book, published by Image Books, a division of Random House, comes at a time when Catholics, and people of all faiths, are genuinely concerned about the way the Health and Human Services mandate will weaken our First Amendment right to religious liberty; it is the publishing house’s first e-book original. It also comes at a time when radical secularism has become increasingly aggressive in our culture.

Do yourself a favor and buy this book now: for the price of a half-cup of coffee, you can’t buy a better Easter gift.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on an article that appears today as a post on the Philadelphia magazine blog site by Joel Mathis:

Joel Mathis isn’t Catholic, but that doesn’t stop him from giving some heady advice to Philadelphia Archbishop Charles Chaput: just tend to the problems in the archdiocese and drop your criticisms of the Obama administration. Mathis is angry that Chaput has a new e-book coming out tomorrow, A Heart on Fire: Catholic Witness and the Next America, that addresses recent attacks on religious liberty. Mathis counsels Chaput to “concentrate on fixing the Catholic Church in Philadelphia,” adding that the archbishop’s alleged “anti-Obama crusade” amounts to “a distraction.”

Catholics like to lecture the outspoken archbishop as well. Last September, no sooner had Archbishop Chaput taken over in Philly when Catholic attorney Nicholas Cafardi offered his instructions. Noting that Chaput likes to comment on the big issues of the day, he said, “Chaput would be well-advised to leave politics aside.”

But Archbishop Chaput will have none of it: he will not be silenced. Indeed, he is delightfully insubordinate—nothing will stop him from opining on anything he wants, and nothing will stop him from faithfully serving his archdiocese. That’s precisely why the Catholic League loves him—he’s a man of steely determination and incredible fortitude.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on Saturday’s “Reason Rally” in Washington, D.C. attended by atheists:

It is impossible for atheists to have a rally without bashing people of faith. They especially loathe Christians, and no group gets them jacked up more than Roman Catholics. Saturday’s rally was no exception.

Although atheists claim that people of faith brainwash kids, it is they who are the masters. “Hey Kids,” one of the signs read, “It’s Okay—GOD is PRETEND.” Being vulgar comes natural to them: “Religion is Like a Penis,” one sign read, “It’s OK to have one…But it is NOT OK to whip it out in public, shove it in my face, or tell me what to do because you have one….” Then there was the gal who held a sign demanding that adherents of the three monotheistic religions “Get Out of My Panties.”

They got specific with signs such as “So many Christians, so few lions.” There was a man dressed as Jesus riding an inflatable dinosaur; another man held a large wooden cross with a mask of “The Joker” on top. They really got specific when Australian songwriter Tim Minchin thrilled the crowd with “The Pope Song.” Here are some of the lyrics: “I don’t give a f*** if calling the pope a motherf***er means…You see I don’t give a f*** what any other motherf***er believes about Jesus and his motherf***ing mother.”

The big draw was Englishman Richard Dawkins. He implored the crowd to “ridicule and show contempt” for people of faith. “Mock them, ridicule them in public,” he bellowed. Especially Catholics. Dawkins not only mocked the Eucharist, he advised the crowd to ask Catholics, “Do you really believe…that when a priest blesses a wafer, it turns into the body of Christ?”

Catholics take note: The fact that the atheists always attack us more than any other religious group is a backhanded compliment. They know who the real enemy of hate is, and who they must defeat. They don’t have a prayer.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the way film critics are responding to “October Baby,” a movie with a pro-life message that opens today:

The A.V. Club, an entertainment website, calls the film “propaganda for the already converted,” and the Detroit News brands it “indecent propaganda” (decent propaganda would be a pro-abortion movie). Similarly, the St. Paul Pioneer Press says the flick has “a lesson it wants to smash into our heads” (as opposed to being thoughtfully pro-abortion). But none can match Jeannette Catsoulis of the New York Times.

Catsoulis says that “at its core” the movie is “like the bloodied placards brandished by demonstrators outside women’s health clinics.” Indeed, it is meant to foster “guilt and fear.” Referring to the moving comments by Jasmine Guy, who plays the role of an abortion assistant, Catsoulis says her remarks are analogous to “a gory portrait of fetal mutilation and maternal distress.” Not only that, but get this: the purpose of Guy’s comments is to “terrify young women—and fits right in with proposed state laws that increasingly turn the screws on a woman’s dominion over her reproductive system.” Wow! Then she really goes ballistic: she exclaims that despite the movie’s message, “abortion is not a crime, no matter how fervently some people continue to wish that it were.”

All of this in a 319-word movie review! Catsoulis is obviously frustrated that she is not an op-ed writer; this explains why she writes them anyway while supposedly doing a movie review. In any event, it would be helpful to know why she reacted with such hysteria to a pro-life movie. One thing it does prove: a movie is not just a movie (every time I complain about a Catholic-bashing film I’m told to beg off—it’s just a movie).

The Los Angeles Times’ Gary Goldstein was quite fair when he said the “poignancy is hard to deny whatever side of the abortion debate you fall on.” I would go further: it is exceptional and deserves a wide audience.

Contact Catsoulis: cine.phile@verizon.net

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the findings of a new survey published by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life:

Only 35 percent of the American people think the Democratic Party is “friendly to religion,” while 54 percent say the Republicans are. When asked specifically about the Obama administration, 39 percent see it as “friendly,” and 23 percent see it as “unfriendly.” But in 2009, only 17 percent said the administration was “unfriendly to religion.”

The big problem for Obama is with Catholics, especially white Catholics. The percent of Catholics who say the administration is “unfriendly to religion” has jumped in the past three years from 15 percent to 25 percent. Among white Catholics, the percent who say the administration is “unfriendly” has gone from 17 percent to 31 percent.

It is not hard to fathom why the Obama administration is having a hard time with Catholics. After all, it is trying to force its secular agenda down their throat by making those who work in Catholic non-profit groups pay for abortion-inducing drugs in their insurance premiums.

Moreover, the administration recently denied funding to a Catholic social service agency that helps women and children merely because it is pro-life. Obama has appointed people such as Kathleen Sebelius to his cabinet, even though she has been at war with the Catholic Church for decades. He tried to get a big post for a woman who once worked on an ACLU lawsuit trying to strip the Catholic Church of its tax-exempt status. He hosted a forum for some of the biggest Catholic bashers in the nation when he welcomed the Secular Coalition for America in 2010. He has opposed school choice—vouchers for indigent parents to send their children to a parochial school—while funding the “choice” of aborting their babies. The list is endless.

Everyone knows that Protestants vote Republican and Jews vote Democrat. It’s Catholics who are up for grabs.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on those who continue to defend the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP):

Last week we released a report on SNAP that showed beyond a reasonable doubt what an utter fraud the organization is (click here to read it). It was not an essay; it was not an op-ed; it was not conjecture; it was not our opinion. It was the voice of David Clohessy, the director of SNAP. When coupled with our report last summer on the proceedings of its national convention (it offered irrefutable proof of its hate-filled agenda) it cannot be maintained by any serious observer what SNAP is all about.

The credibility of those who continue to defend this wholly discredited organization is on the line. That would include the editorial board of the New York Times and the Newark Star-Ledger (the latter offered a particularly vicious statement), as well as pundits such as Andrew Sullivan. That the near-moribund National Organization for Women and the Feminist Majority should weigh in is not surprising: though SNAP has nothing to do with women’s rights, it has everything to do with attacking the Catholic Church, and that is music to the ear of radical feminists. But it is Frank Bruni, an op-ed columnist for the New York Times, who needs to be answered more than anyone; he loves SNAP.

Bruni notes that “some Catholic leaders have contended” that what drives wide media coverage of the issue of priestly sexual abuse is “an anti-Catholic and anti-religious bias.” Wrong, he says, it’s because of the “magnitude of the violation of trust.” No, sir, it isn’t. If it were, then the Times would be covering the incredible explosion of child sexual abuse by rabbis (in Brooklyn alone, 85 arrests have taken place in the last two years, yet the Times has never reported on any of this). Moreover, the media treat with a yawn the alarming rate of child sexual abuse in the public schools. So what else, if not anti-Catholicism, would be driving the disproportionate coverage? I’m still waiting for the evidence that I am wrong.