On May 27, Barbara Bradley Hagerty did a piece that was posted on the website of National Public Radio (NPR) titled, “Just Doing His Job Is Catholic Official’s Defense.” Here is how she opened her story:

“A clergy sex-abuse trial in is [sic] reaching a crescendo in a Philadelphia courtroom. One defendant is James Brennan, a priest accused of trying to rape a minor, which is not that unusual.” [Emphasis added.]

Bill Donohue comments as follows:

We are asking NPR to respond to our complaint. In this day and age when it is considered taboo to make sweeping generalizations of a negative sort about so many demographic groups, it is astonishing that NPR would allow this bigoted swipe at Catholic priests.

For the record, almost all priests in the nation—now as well as before—have never had a single charge of sexual molestation made against them. Of those who have, a large share of the accusations have been proven false. Of the guilty, the most common form of abuse was “inappropriate touching”—not rape—and the most common victim was an adolescent. So to feed the perception that it is not unusual to find rapist priests is unconscionable.

What makes this offensive characterization so doubly despicable is that Father James Brennan was initially charged with anally raping his alleged victim, yet at the end of last year the charge was amended to attempted rape.

I hasten to add that I have done several interviews with NPR recently and have found their correspondents to be very professional. But what happened in this instance cannot go unanswered.

Catholic League director of policy studies, Marcus Plieninger, previewed the film “For Greater Glory.” The following are his comments:

Pope Benedict XVI’s trip to Mexico this year would not have been possible under the brutally anti-Catholic Calles regime of 1920’s Mexico, the setting of “For Greater Glory,” the new film out in theaters June 1.

The movie dramatically portrays a government crack-down on the Catholic Church with such measures as a prohibition on the public wearing of clerical garb and the seizure of Church property. The National League for the Defense of Religious Liberty springs into action with a petition and a boycott. Peaceful resistance proves futile as violence against the Church escalates, with churches ravaged, altars destroyed, parishioners murdered, and priests hanged. Rebellions ensue. Women smuggle bullets. An army is raised. Their battle cry is “¡Viva Cristo Rey!” They are the Cristeros.

The film features a stellar cast and memorable scenes. There is Peter O’Toole’s unforgettable performance as Father Christopher. Andy Garcia brings depth to his portrayal of General Velarde, who eventually leads the Cristeros. Mauricio Kuri plays the 14-year old Cristero, José Luis Sánchez del Rio, who is ultimately tortured and executed in excruciatingly moving footage. (Incidentally, this martyr was beatified, along with 12 others in the resistance, at the request of Pope Benedict XVI.)

“For Greater Glory” is a compelling movie about religious liberty. It deserves a wide audience.

Bill Donohue’s new book, Why Catholicism Matters: How Catholic Virtues Can Reshape Society in the 21st Century, is available today. To view a discussion of it, click here.

“Bill Donohue’s Why Catholicism Matters offers a fresh and compelling look at how the teachings of the Catholic Church continue to provide the best guide for a healthy, happy society.”
    His Eminence Timothy Michael Cardinal Dolan

“One can rarely finish a commentary by Dr. William Donohue and remain unfazed. In Why Catholicism Matters readers of every persuasion will find much to inform, deliberate, and, invariably, take issue with.”
    His Eminence Edwin Cardinal O’Brien

“Why Catholicism Matters is an important contribution at a critical time. As a preeminent voice defending the Church, Dr. Donohue eloquently explains the beauty and importance of Catholic faith.”
    His Eminence Donald Cardinal Wuerl

“TV audiences know Bill Donohue as a scrapper—a vigorous defender of the Catholic faith in his public role as leader of the Catholic League. But he’s also a gifted scholar. This is a must-read book.”
    Archbishop Charles J. Chaput

“Donohue is a treasure and his book is a gem.”
    Mary Ann Glendon, Harvard Law Professor

“This tour of the Church’s forgotten virtues and the many gifts She has given society reminds us all why the Faith remains the prime mover in our time. It also demonstrates why Donohue matters!”
    Raymond Arroyo, Host of EWTN’s “The World Over”

The book is available online at Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Google Books, and at bookstores. It is also available at the Catholic League.

Bill Donohue addresses an editorial in the New York Times, and a column by Lisa Miller in the Washington Post, that appeared on Sunday:

The central issue in the fight between the Obama administration and the Catholic Church is the right of the federal government to redefine religious institutions as entities that hire and serve mostly people of their own faith. Secondarily, the fight is over forcing Catholics to pay for abortion-inducing drugs. But one looks in vain for the Church’s critics to even acknowledge this reality. It’s not contraception that is in play—“It’s the First Amendment, Stupid.”

The Times says the Obama mandate “specifically exempts houses of worship.” Try telling that to Donald Cardinal Wuerl who runs the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C.; it is a self-insured entity and thus must be forced to pay for morally objectionable services. The Times says most American Catholic women do not agree with the Church’s contraception stand, but fails to mention that because of the Obama administration’s disrespect for religious liberty, support for Obama has dropped precipitously among Catholic women.

Lisa Miller argues that a “small group of very conservative bishops have hijacked the church,” and cites Stockton Bishop Stephen Blaire as taking the other side. She is wrong. Three days before Miller’s piece ran, Blaire issued a statement saying, “I stand solidly with my brother bishops in our common resolve to overturn the unacceptable intrusion of government into the life of the Church by the HHS Mandate.”

Here’s what is really driving this story. The secular critics of the Catholic Church, beginning with HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, are so out of touch with Catholic sentiment today that they seriously misread the reaction to this issue. Moreover, they thoroughly underestimated the resolve of today’s crop of Catholic bishops. Now they are trying to deflect what is really happening, but it’s too late.

Bill Donohue comments on presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s “A Chance for Every Child” education policy:

Mitt Romney unveiled a plan yesterday that will do more to provide upward social mobility for the poor and disabled than any proposal on the table today. “As President,” he said, “I will give the parents of every low-income and special needs student the chance to choose where their child goes to school. For the first time in history, federal education funds will be linked to a student, so that parents can send their child to any public or charter school, or to a private school, where permitted.”

It is scandalous that those who rhetorically champion the interests of the poor also do the most to keep them in their place. Wedded to the teachers’ unions, the so-called advocates of the poor are scared to death of change. Which is why Romney is correct to say that we are now faced with a “national education emergency.”

It is worse than scandalous—it is obscene—that the current administration has worked overtime to deny poor black parents in Washington, D.C. the same right to choose which school they want to send their children to as the rich have. At the end of 2008, President-elect Obama and his wife shopped around for the best school to send their children to, and they opted for an expensive private school. Yet in 2009 the president, and the Democrat-controlled Congress, killed a stunningly successful voucher program in D.C. In other words, the public schools that weren’t good enough for the Obama children were declared good enough for “them.”

Kudos to Mitt Romney for advancing such an equitable education policy. Score one for social justice.

My Dearest Maureen,

In today’s New York Times, you write the following:

“The church insists it’s an argument about religious freedom, not birth control. But, really, it’s about birth control, and women’s lower caste in the church. It’s about conservative bishops targeting Democratic candidates who support contraception and abortion rights as a matter of public policy. And it’s about a church that is obsessed with sex in ways it shouldn’t be, and not obsessed with sex in ways it should be. The bishops and the Vatican care passionately about putting women in chastity belts.”

I have a confession to make. While some may think you sound like a delusional weepy woman, don’t listen to them. You see, I was in on those meetings with the bishops when we hatched plans to stick it to women and sabotage the Democrats.

We met over drinks. Plenty of them. Except for one bishop who said over time women could become our equal, all of us agreed that you gals need to be kept in your place. As you properly note, this means being subjugated to the lower caste, just the way we snookered Mother Teresa.

You are only partly right about the Democrats. In fact, starting last year our goal was to rig the Republican primary so that Romney would win. Why? Because then we could pull his Mormon strings without being accused of running the government. So far, so good. Just don’t tell Mitt.

We are obsessed about sex. Indeed, when I meet with the bishops, it’s the only thing we talk about. Admittedly, it sometimes feels like I’m at a frat party, but boys will be boys. There is one difference: at frat parties, chastity belts for women are never discussed, but with the bishops, nothing is more important. The goal is to make a “one size fits all” belt, one that is not removable. Velcro works for all sizes, but it comes off. Not to worry, my dearest Maureen, we won’t give up. That’s because, quite unlike the stately New York Times, we’re obsessed about sex.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the fractured relationship between President Obama and the University of Notre Dame:

In 2009, when President Barack Obama gave the Commencement Address at the University of Notre Dame, he stressed, “Let’s honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause….”

Yesterday, Father John I. Jenkins, the president of the University of Notre Dame who welcomed President Obama, explained that Notre Dame was suing the Obama administration because of the need to “assert the right to follow our conscience” on matters such as refusing to pay for “abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptives and sterilization procedures.”

We expect politicians to embellish, but when it comes to serious issues—and we are talking about a religious liberty issue and a life and death issue—we have a right to expect a more principled response. We’re still waiting for that “sensible conscience clause.”

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on lawsuits filed today against the Obama administration. At issue is the constitutionality of the Health and Human Services edict seeking to force Catholic non-profits to pay for abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptive services and sterilization in their insurance plans:

This is a great day for those who believe in religious liberty. Suing the Obama administration for seeking to trash the First Amendment rights of Catholics are 43 Catholic dioceses and institutions from all over the nation.

Among those filing suit are: the Archdiocese of New York; the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C.; the Archdiocese of St. Louis; the Diocese of Rockville Centre; the Diocese of Dallas; the Diocese of Fort Worth; the Diocese of Pittsburgh; the Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend; the Michigan Catholic Conference (which represents all seven dioceses in the state); Catholic University of America; Franciscan University of Steubenville; and the University of Notre Dame. Entities ranging from retirement homes to publishing houses joined the lawsuits.

There will be more. And depending on how the U.S. Supreme Court rules next month on the constitutionality of ObamaCare, this may just be the beginning.

Catholics are sending an unmistakable sign to President Obama, Kathleen Sebelius, et al. that we will not be obedient. We will not do as we are told. Instead, we will do what is just. The Catholic rebellion has begun.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on two newspaper ads he wrote that were published yesterday and today:

Yesterday, we let the workers at Kellogg’s know what we think of their senior management by taking out a full-page ad in the Kalamazoo Gazette (click here to read it). Today, we let the nation know what we think of Jon Stewart by taking out an op-ed page ad in the New York Times (to read it, click here).

Stewart’s hate speech, and Kellogg’s cavalier reaction to it, deserve to be publicly condemned. There is nothing funny about Stewart’s stunt, and there is nothing commendable about Kellogg’s arrogance. But they didn’t get away scot-free: Their reputations will never be the same.

Contact Comedy Central: steve.albani@cc.com

Contact Kellogg’s: kris.charles@kellogg.com

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ address at Georgetown University today:

Kathleen Sebelius quoted selectively from John F. Kennedy’s 1960 address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association. She said she shares Kennedy’s vision of America “where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials—and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against us all.”

This was obviously meant as a shot at those bad bishops who allegedly want to impose their will on the public.

In that same speech, however, Kennedy said, “I would not look with favor upon a President working to subvert the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious liberty.”

Perhaps someone can gently explain to Sebelius why this shows JFK’s astonishing prescience.