Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the decision by JPMorgan Chase to close the Vatican bank account because of alleged lack of transparency:

JPMorgan Chase is an expert in secrecy. Last November, it was reported that the bank, one of the biggest traders of credit derivatives, told their shareholders that they had sold protection on more than $5 trillion of debt. So who benefited? Such economic losers as Greece, Italy, Ireland, Portugal and Spain. According to Mish’s Global Economic Trend Analysis, the stockholders were kept ignorant. “As concerns mount that those countries may not be creditworthy, investors are being kept in the dark about how much risk U.S. banks face from a default.”

JPMorgan Chase doesn’t have a good track record of being transparent, so it is hardly in a position to point fingers. Worse is its selective finger-pointing: it has no problem coming to the rescue of Italy, but it is very upset with the Vatican. As they like to say, we could use a little sunshine on this issue.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments as follows:

Sexual abuse of students in the New York City schools is exploding, yet New York State Assemblywoman Margaret Markey turns a blind eye to it. She recently introduced legislation, as she does annually, that exclusively targets private schools for cases of abuse that occurred a long time ago. The cover story in today’s New York Daily News reads, “Record 14 School Staff Busted Already: Readin’ Writin’ & Rikers.” It details crimes ranging from sexual abuse to assault (Rikers is a jail).

To his credit, New York City Schools Chancellor Dennis Walcott is cracking down. He reviewed 250 employee records dating to 2000 and is seeking to oust the guilty. But Walcott doesn’t have time to deal with old cases—he’s got an epidemic on his hands right now. For example, after a school aide was arrested February 10 for molesting a boy (boys are frequently the victims these days), we learned that he got a slap on the wrist for offensive sexual behavior in 2006.

Sexual molesters in the schools are not always given a mere oral reprimand—they are simply moved to another school. It happens so often in the public schools that it is called “passing the trash.” Last month, the New York Times did a story on Walcott’s efforts. “In two of the cases,” it reported, “the teacher or teacher’s aide had been found to have acted inappropriately with students at previous schools, but had been able to transfer. Education officials acknowledged on Friday that they had failed to notify the principals of the new schools of the earlier accusations.”

Any law that addresses the issue of the sexual abuse of minors that does not include the public schools is tantamount to a cover-up. That is why all eyes should turn to Assemblywoman Markey.

Contact Markey: MarkeyM@assembly.state.ny.us

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court not to accept a church-state case that involves the Archdiocese of St. Louis:

A man claims he was abused by another man back in 1971 when he was a teenager. The alleged offender is dead, and the alleged victim never knew what supposedly happened to him until one day in therapy ten years ago. Then, all of a sudden, it hit him like a ton of bricks—bingo, his memory was restored. Sound familiar? It happens all the time to priests. For some strange reason, this jarred-memory-phenomenon does not happen very often when the alleged molester is a school teacher.

Those issues, while important, were not at the heart of this case. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear this case because the Missouri Court of Appeals reached an eminently defensible conclusion in 2010: in order for the courts to determine whether the Archdiocese of St. Louis was negligent in its handling of the accused priest, Father Thomas Cooper, it necessarily had to involve itself in the internal affairs of the Church. Such a level of intrusion would cross church-state lines, and therefore violate the First Amendment.

This is a big loss for Marci Hamilton, an attorney who is notoriously partisan against the Catholic Church. It also signifies a loss for the editorial board of the New York Times; last week it called the Missouri decision “bizarre.”

One more thing: it is wrong for the Times, and the media in general, to continue to discuss the “pedophile” problem in the Catholic Church. There never was such a problem—less than 5 percent of accused priests fit the description of a pedophile. In the lion’s share of these cases, homosexuality was at work, not pedophilia. Indeed, in this particular case, the man who made the charges was also post-pubescent when the alleged offense took place more than 40 years ago. Failure to tell the truth about this matter stands in the way of corrective action.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the statement [click here] just released by the Administrative Committee of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops:

The statement, “United for Religious Freedom,” is the clearest exposition of contemporary Catholic thought on religious liberty in America. It leaves nothing on the table.

It speaks directly to the Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate that seeks to force Catholic non-profits to cover services it deems objectionable in its insurance plans. Mincing no words, the statement declares the HHS edict to be “unjust and illegal.”

It debunks many myths about this issue: it is not about contraception; it is not just about Catholic religious rights; it is not about the Catholic Church trying to impose its will on others—it is about the federal government trying to impose its agenda on us; it is not about opposition to universal health care (the Church has long championed this right); and it is not about choosing political sides. It is about religious liberty.

Most important, the statement argues that the HHS mandate seeks to create a three-tiered class of citizens’ rights: by defining religious rights as applying only to those who work for religious institutions that hire and serve mostly people of their own faith, the Obama administration has relegated those who work in religious institutions that serve everyone to a second-class status; those who are not a religious employer but nonetheless reject on religious grounds to funding immoral insurance plans constitute a third-class of citizens.

The good news is that the bishops aren’t flinching: there is no room for compromise when the subject is our constitutional rights—rights that come from God, as the Declaration affirmed, not government. It warms the heart to read that the “unprecedented magnitude of this latest threat has only strengthened our resolve” to do what is right. The bishops have the unqualified support of the Catholic League.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments as follows:

The Obama administration will not extend a religious exemption to Catholic non-profits who don’t want their insurance carrier to provide for abortion-inducing drugs, but it has decided to grant a religious exemption to an Indian tribe so they can kill bald eagles. The Northern Arapaho Tribe threatened to sue the government for violating its religious liberties when they were denied a permit to kill the eagles; federal law prohibits killing a bald eagle. Now the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has decided to grant the tribe a permit to kill two bald eagles.

We live in strange times. It is legal to kill a human being in utero through term—for any reason. Moreover, the president of the United States thinks it should be legal to allow a baby born alive as a result of a botched abortion to die on the doctor’s table unattended. But we can’t kill eagles that are bald. However, the Northern Arapaho can kill the birds by insisting on their religious rights. Yet when Catholics demand their religious rights, they are punished, largely because they oppose killing unborn babies.

It should be noted that not only is it illegal to kill one of these birds, it is illegal to “disturb” them (see 16 U.S.C. 668-668c). But disturbing babies in the womb—e.g., when an abortionist jams a pair scissors into the kid’s head in a partial-birth abortion—is somehow acceptable. The only time these people object to disturbing babies in utero is when a doctor is required to show a woman contemplating an abortion a picture of her child via sonogram.

What if the Indians kill three of these birds? Can they file suit claiming the quota system is unconstitutional? Lucky for them they don’t have to worry about PETA—they’re too busy killing 95 percent of the cats and dogs in their possession [click here for the latest evidence].

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments as follows:

On March 9, the New York Times ran a viciously anti-Catholic ad placed by the radical atheist group, Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF); to read it, and our rejoinder to it, click here. In response, anti-Islamist activist Pamela Geller decided to submit an ad to the Times that played off the FFRF ad by changing the wording to make it look like an attack on Islam. For example, she asked Muslims to quit their religion because they oppress so many people.

Neil Munro of The Daily Caller has a splendid article on Geller’s courageous gambit today [click here to read it]. She was turned down by the Times. It was rejected, they said, because “the fallout from running this ad now could put U.S. troops and/or civilians in the [Afghan] region in danger.”

The Times’ rationale for denying Geller’s ad is sound: as a veteran, I am opposed to unnecessarily putting our armed forces in harm’s way. But I wonder why it takes fear to impel the New York Times not to run bigoted ads. Wouldn’t ethics suffice? It certainly wasn’t enough when they decided to run the FFRF ad assaulting Catholic sensibilities.

It would be wrong to merely pick on the Times. We need to have a national discussion on the way the elite media extend a privileged position to some sectors of our society, while failing to extend the same protections to other sectors.

Contact NYT senior VP of corporate communications: robert.christie@nytimes.com

Catholic League president Bill Donohue responds to today’s editorial in the New York Times on the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP):

We now know from the deposition of SNAP director David Clohessy that he has been (a) lying to the media about his work (b) falsely advertising his group as a rape crisis center (c) working with unseemly lawyers (d) exploiting his clients by providing unauthorized “counseling” services (e) ripping off those who are truly in need of help by failing to contribute even a dime for licensed counselors, and (f) pursuing priests on the basis of legal criteria he admits he cannot explain.

Furthermore, we know from two people who went undercover last summer to a SNAP conference in the D.C. area that the Catholic Church is regarded by these activists as “the evil institution.” Yet when the bishops finally decide to play hardball, they are slammed by the New York Times!

When the Times is sued, does it hire wimpy lawyers? Does it allow itself to be a punching bag? Not on your life: they hire the most aggressive attorneys they can buy. But when the bishops follow suit, they’re accused of not showing “reconciliation” for the victims.

The New York Times needs to get it straight: when rapacious activists and lawyers, motivated by revenge—not justice—seek to bleed the Catholic Church by using methods that are unethical at best, and illegal at worst, then it is only fair that the bishops take a page out of the New York Times playbook and defend themselves. With vigor.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the “war on women” that has allegedly been taking place:

In response to attempts by the Obama administration to jam its secular agenda down the throats of Catholics, the bishops have responded by standing up for the First Amendment rights of Catholics. Critics of the bishops retaliated by saying that the Church has decided to launch a “war on women.” Then they rolled out Sandra Fluke. World War III was about to begin.

Today’s New York Times shows that President Obama’s approval rating among men went from 45 percent to 41 percent in the past month. Among women, the figures went from 53 percent to 41 percent. How could it be that Obama dropped 12 percentage points with women if the Catholic Church, Rush Limbaugh, and the entire Republican Party have conspired to declare war on them? If anything, Obama’s numbers with women should be spiking.

This is, without doubt, the shortest war in history.

On January 2, David Clohessy, the president of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP), was deposed in Missouri regarding his role in cases of priestly sexual abuse. The deposition was recently made available [click here]; Catholic League president Bill Donohue has written a report on it, SNAP UNRAVELS [to read it, click here]; it is being mailed to the bishops today.

Donohue summarizes his report as follows:

David Clohessy claims that he doesn’t have to turn over most of the requested documents, or answer many of the questions. Why? Because SNAP is a rape crisis center, and therefore its confidentiality is protected under Missouri law. But when asked directly if SNAP is a rape crisis center, he said, “I don’t know.” He also admitted that he doesn’t know what constitutes a rape crisis center in Missouri.

Clohessy counsels alleged victims of abuse for a living, yet he admits to having no training whatsoever. He confessed that he does his unlicensed counseling in places like Starbucks; he also “consoles” his clients over the phone. Furthermore, there is not a single employed licensed counselor on SNAP’s staff. Moreover, he could not state a single instance where SNAP has paid for a licensed counselor to counsel a specific person.

Clohessy refused to disclose the source of his funding. He said he was wholly unaware that SNAP was mandated by federal law to contribute to charities. It was revealed that SNAP spent a grand total of $593 in 2007 on “survivor support”; the following year, it spent $92,000 on travel.

When asked how SNAP could get its hands on lawsuits against the Catholic Church before they were even filed, he refused to answer. He also said that aside from SNAP founder, Barbara Blaine, he did not know the full names of those on his staff. When asked if he ever gave false statements to the press, he didn’t blink. “Sure,” he said.

Even if Clohessy started out as an activist for justice, it is crystal clear that he has evolved into something altogether different.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments as follows:

Never has there been a more vicious anti-Catholic advertisement in a prominent American newspaper than the one in today’s New York Times by Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF). The demonization of Catholicism is palpable.

The pretext of the ad [click here] is the Catholic Church’s opposition to the Health and Human Services mandate forcing Catholic non-profits to include abortion-inducing drugs, contraception and sterilization in its insurance plans. Its real agenda is to smear Catholicism. Here is how the ad begins: “It’s time to quit the Roman Catholic Church. Will it be reproductive freedom, or back to the Dark Ages?”

The ad blames the Catholic Church for promoting “acute misery, poverty, needless suffering, unwanted pregnancies, overpopulation, social evils and deaths.” It says the bishops are “launching a ruthless political Inquisition” against women. It talks about “preying priests” and corruption “going all the way to the top.” In an appeal to Catholic women, it opines, “Apparently, you’re like the battered woman who, after being beaten down every Sunday, feels she has no place else to go.”

FFRF is led by a husband and wife team, Annie Laurie Gaylor and Dan Barker. Fortunately for Gaylor, her mother did not follow through on the advice she gave women in her book, Abortion Is a Blessing.

Not a single Catholic who reads this ad will be impelled to leave the Church. That is not the issue (Catholicism, unlike many other religions, is actually growing in the U.S., and worldwide). The issue is the increase in hate speech directed at Catholics.

Nothing will stop Catholics from demanding that the Obama administration respect their First Amendment rights, this vile assault by FFRF notwithstanding. Why the Times allowed this ad is another issue altogether.

Contact the “free thought” bigots at FFRF: fttoday@mailbag.com