Bill Donohue comments on an op-ed by Hans Küng in today’s New York Times:

Yesterday, I took on the unfair reporting by the Times on the pope [click here for my Newsmax piece]. Today, I will address one of Benedict’s most virulent critics, Hans Küng, an embittered ex-Catholic theologian.

Küng says the pope “irritated the Protestant churches, Jews, Muslims, the Indians of Latin America, women, reform-minded theologians and all pro-reform Catholics.” He blames the pope (when he was Cardinal Ratzinger) for covering up the sexual abuse of minors, and cites “Vatileaks” as a problem. He also says the two major scandals of his tenure were giving “recognition” to the “Society of St. Pius X, which is bitterly opposed to the Second Vatican Council, as well as of a Holocaust denier, Bishop Richard Williamson.”

It is true some Protestant churches were angry after the pope welcomed Anglicans into the Church; Küng fails to mention they lobbied hard to join. Jews have warmly embraced the pope, though some were unhappy when the Latin Mass was being promoted. However, as Rabbi Brad Hirschfield recently said, “It is unfair to complain about a text, which has its own parallels in Jewish liturgy….” Yes, there were Muslims who misunderstood the pope’s 2006 speech when he warned against severing the link between faith and reason; rioting and murder followed, unwittingly proving his point. In 2007, the pope didn’t win the plaudits of some Indians in Brazil when he criticized “the utopia of going back to breathe life into the pre-Columbus religions,” but he won points for being honest. Catholic women have embraced the pope, save for those who share the dissident views of the “reformers.”

No one has done a better job of rooting out the homosexual predators than Cardinal Ratzinger, and “Vatileaks” is a joke—every institution has leakers. The Society of St. Pius X has not returned to full communion with the Vatican, and Bishop Williamson has been expelled. In any event, I thought Küng wanted the Vatican to go soft on dissidents.

Bill Donohue comments on what happened in the cafeteria at Hunter College in New York City Wednesday evening:

Some young men at Hunter decided to play a game mocking abortion. So they stuffed balloons under their shirts, pretending to be pregnant, and then used plastic forks and knives on each other to pop the balloons. Students yelled, “Kill that baby! Kill it!”

At least these men were honest: pregnant women are not carrying blobs of cells—they are carrying a human being. Notice that the guys didn’t scream “Kill that fetus.” Indeed, “Kill that baby” makes so much more sense. Which is why it just rolled off their lips.

This month marks the 50th anniversary of Betty Friedan’s book, The Feminine Mystique, the work that launched the feminist movement in our time; one of the byproducts of that movement was the legalization of abortion. Interestingly, we know from every survey ever conducted on abortion rights that there is no segment of the population that is more enthusiastic about a woman’s “right to choose” than young men. This, of course, is not what Friedan intended.

Had feminists thought about this subject more clearly, they would have realized that legalizing abortion would be a boon to millions of selfish, exploitative young men. Just like the ones who acted out at Hunter.

Bill Donohue comments on today’s post by Andrew Sullivan:

Andrew Sullivan accuses the pope of being a homosexual. His evidence? The pope’s “handsome male companion [Archbishop Georg Ganswein] will continue to live with him, while working for the other Pope during the day.” Sullivan asks, “Are we supposed to think that’s, well, a normal arrangement?”

Speaking about what is normal is hardly normal for Sullivan. To be specific, in 2001 he solicited anal sex with anonymous men by posting a picture of his torso on the Internet. He explicitly requested to have sex with men who did not wear condoms, begging for orgies. Unfortunately for him, he was outed by his boyfriends after they recognized it was his body.

The media are all abuzz about Sullivan’s latest charge. There’s nothing new to any of this. In 2010, he wrote that “it seems pretty obvious to me…that the current Pope is a gay man.” What clinched it for him was “the Pope’s mental architecture.” By this he means the pope’s “frissy fastidiousness, the effeminate voice…the over-the-top clothing accessories,” etc. Nice to know Sullivan indulges in gay stereotypes when it suits him. But if the pope were truly gay, why doesn’t he have that prototypical gay lisp? Nor has anyone ever accused him of being a narcissist, another trait associated with homosexuals.

In any event, it’s not hard to explain why Sullivan is out to smear the pope again. Just two weeks ago he flatly said, “Evil remains at the heart of the Vatican.” If he believes that, then it is easy to demonize the pope.

I confess I don’t know enough about Andrew Sullivan’s “mental architecture” to explain why his intrinsic disorder manifests itself in such a vile way. That it does is beyond dispute.

Contact: andrew@andrewsullivan.com

Over the weekend, Sally Quinn wrote a piece in the Washington Post that caught the interest of Bill Donohue. Here is his response:

It is not easy to write an op-ed on any subject and manage to be factually wrong about virtually everything. But Sally Quinn did just that.

Quinn speaks about the “child sexual abuse scandal” in the Catholic Church. The scandal did not involve children—less than 5 percent of the victims were prepubescent. The typical offense involved “inappropriate touching” of postpubescent males. In other words, it was a homosexual scandal. Furthermore, it ended more than a quarter century ago: the number of credibly accused priests over the last decade has averaged in the single digits, among a population of more than 40,000. No religious or secular group can match that proportion today.

Due principally to the efforts of Pope Benedict XVI, it is much harder for practicing homosexuals to enter the priesthood these days. The net result is an incredibly sharp decline in abuse. Those who were guilty are for the most part either dead or laicized.

If the Catholic Church were anti-women, then women wouldn’t account for the vast majority of leadership positions in the Church.

Colm Toibin’s novel, The Testament of Mary, is a work of fiction. So why bother cite it as evidence of anything? Moreover, Garry Wills is not “a devout Catholic.” Indeed, he is no longer Catholic. How do I know? He recently said he doesn’t believe in the Eucharist. End of story.

Quinn told her parents she was an atheist at the ripe old age of 13. Speaking of her upbringing, she says, “What we really believed in and practiced was voodoo, psychic phenomenon, Scottish mysticism, palm reading, astrology, séances, and ghosts.” Sounds like the voodoo really took a toll on her.

Contact: Quinns@washpost.com

Bill Donohue comments on an apology made by the satirical publication, The Onion:

During the Oscars on Sunday, The Onion made an obscene comment on its Twitter account about Quvenzhané Wallis. It referred to the 9-year-old girl as a “c***.” After fielding a ton of complaints, an apology was granted. Greg Hughes, who issued the tweet, said his remarks were “crude and offensive.” He added, “No person should be subjected to such a senseless, humorless comment masquerading as satire.” Steve Hannah, CEO of The Onion, said “we are taking immediate steps to discipline those individuals responsible.” He closed by saying, “Miss Wallis, you are young and talented and deserve better. All of us at The Onion are deeply sorry.”

They both lied. They only apologized because they got bombarded with criticism from liberal Hollywood about trashing a minority girl. If they had the standards they say they have, they wouldn’t have printed a vile piece about the pope on December 13. PLEASE NOTE: The following remarks made by The Onion contain extremely offensive language.

The article says the pope gave permission to make a porn flick at the Vatican. The film crew, we learn, had to “install glory holes in the confessional booth” (they are used by homosexuals for fellatio). “This place has some f***ing beautiful art and s***. And it’s only going to look better dripping with hot jizz.”

The movie is said to feature “masturbation, blow jobs, girl-on-girl action, strap-on crucifixes, cum shots, triple-anal penetration, semen swapping, papalingus, bondage, and a gang-bang scene titled, ‘Immaculate Erection,’ which features several archbishops and the Virgin Mary.”

In other words, The Onion has no standards regarding “crude and offensive” work when it comes to Catholics. Nor does it discipline those who make vulgar comments about Catholicism. But it bows to the protected classes.

Bill Donohue comments on news stories involving gay priests:

Is there a “gay lobby” involved in blackmail that resulted in the decision of the pope to resign? No serious observer in or out of the Vatican currently accepts this account. But that hardly means there isn’t still a gay subculture in the Catholic Church.

Father Donald B. Cozzens warned us many years ago that the priesthood was becoming a “gay profession.” Notre Dame theologian Father Richard McBrien also spoke about the “gay culture” in the Church, and the damage it was doing. Father Andrew Greeley coined the term “Lavender Mafia” to refer to the way homosexual priests cover for each other. All three priests have stellar liberal credentials.

Now we have reports that Cardinal Keith O’Brien of Scotland will not be going to Rome to join the conclave because he does not want to distract from the proceedings. He has resigned following allegations by three priests and one former priest that he was involved in improper conduct. He says the accusations are untrue. Is this another example of the “Lavender Mafia” at work?

Consider this. We don’t know the names of the four men making the accusations because the British newspaper behind this story, The Observer, won’t release them; the details of what allegedly happened have not been disclosed (all we know are vague statements about “inappropriate” and “unwanted” contact); the four accusers waited over 30 years to come forward before coordinating their joint charges.

Cardinal Keith O’Brien must be considered innocent until proven guilty. But we don’t need to wait any longer to conclude that the British media have discredited themselves again (they do so regularly with all matters Catholic). To withhold the names of the accusers, and the details of what allegedly happened (dating back to 1980), without ever allowing the accused to rebut the charges, is despicable. Am I alone in picking up the scent of lavender in the air?

Bill Donohue addresses a Pew Research Center survey of Catholics that was released on February 21:

The Pew Research Center survey is entitled, “U.S. Catholics Divided On Church’s Direction Under New Pope.” Not surprisingly, most media outlets ran similar headlines. I have a high regard for the work of Pew, but there are a few important caveats that need to be respected.

Self-identification can be problematic. If someone rarely, if ever, attends church, yet identifies himself as a Catholic, should he be considered as such? The Pew survey does distinguish between Catholics who “attend weekly” and those who “attend less often,” but the latter is so vague as to be meaningless: “less often” can mean anything from once a month to once a year. Moreover, most media outlets run stories on the aggregate number, thereby leaving the impression that Catholics are deeply divided. As the survey shows, it is not practicing Catholics who are the most critical of Church teachings.

Also, when Catholics are asked if the new pope should “move in new directions,” Pew analysts and reporters just assume that those who answer “yes” want the Church to become more “modern.” Yet there are many practicing Catholics who want the Church to change so it can become more traditional.

Then there is the profound difference between a preference and a demand. Ask a Catholic if it is okay for priests to marry. Most will say sure. But how many practicing Catholics really care? In other words, expressing a preference is hardly the equivalent of making a demand. Practicing Catholics are not about to bolt if celibacy remains the rule.

We are going to be bombarded with more surveys over the next month. Beware of the game that pundits (not necessarily the researchers) are playing, the purpose of which is to create the illusion of a Church badly divided. That’s the only hope the “progressives” have. That their means are intellectually dishonest is par for the course.

Bill Donohue comments as follows:

Thanks to NewsBusters, we learned that homosexual sexpert Dan Savage savaged the pope earlier this week on slog.thestranger.com. Unable to mount a rational critique of Pope Benedict XVI, he settled for writing a headline that was almost as long as his “story.” It reads, “That Motherf***ing Power-Hungry, Self-Aggrandized Bigot In the Stupid F***ing Hat Announces His Retirement.” Savage used the same headline last December, save for substituting “Joins Twitter” for the last three words in his post of February 11.

Savage has a long history of trashing Catholicism, and he not only does it with impunity, he is rewarded for it. To wit: In 2011, he was invited to a White House reception for homosexuals. He said he arrived with his husband (would that make him the guy’s wife?).

Savage gets away with his vile rants against Catholicism because he knows he can. Let’s face it, most of the mainstream media are as pro-gay as they are anti-Catholic. It really isn’t any more complicated than this.

Contact Savage at: mail@savagelove.net

Bill Donohue sent the following letter today to Allegheny College president Dr. James H. Mullen, Jr.:

Last night, two sexperts arrived on your campus to teach students how to masturbate. Women were told that by “inserting a finger or fingers inside the vagina into the front wall of the body” they will experience orgasm. “If you’ve got a vagina, your genitals are tucked pretty neatly inside your body. It’s a pretty handy place to keep one’s genitals, really.” Such words of wisdom do not come cheaply: tuition is over $37,000.

Not surprisingly, this exercise in “academic excellence” was sponsored by the pro-abortion advocates (Reproductive Health Coalition) and the homosexual activists (Queers and Allies). None of this really concerns me, but what does interest me is the venue: Ford Memorial Chapel.

The Shafer Auditorium could have been used. So could have the Black Theatre, Quigley 101, Schultz Hall or the Tillotson Room. There are 13 board rooms on campus, as well as many classrooms, conference rooms and computer labs. So I am curious as to why a Christian chapel, which hosts Catholic Masses, was the selected site. You also have a Jewish Community Center and a place for Muslim, Buddhist and Hindu students (the Prayer and Meditation Retreat). Why weren’t they chosen? And why was this event selected to take place in a chapel during Lent?

I would appreciate hearing your thoughts on this matter. Just do me the favor of not invoking academic freedom—that is not the issue. I think you know what is.

Bill Donohue issued the following remarks today:

Here is how the Catholic Left reacted right before a new pope was elected on April 19, 2005:

• E.J. Dionne blasted Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger for using “fighting words” in an address before the cardinals.
• Father Richard McBrien said, “I think this homily shows he realizes he’s not going to be elected. He is a polarizing figure.”
• Peggy Steinfels agreed, saying, “Oh well, that gets rid of him.”

A few hours later, he was elected Pope Benedict XVI.

Here is how the Catholic Left greeted the news:

• The president of Dignity, Michael Rocks, said of the new pope, “I didn’t think he had a chance because he already was so negative.”
• Sr. Donna Quinn, head of the pro-abortion group, National Coalition of American Nuns, slammed him for lacking “sensitivity” to women.
• Scott Appleby of Notre Dame opined, “This is the worst nightmare come true.”
• Ex-priest Paul Lakeland lamented that “this choice is nothing but backwards looking.”
• Andrew Greeley’s warning was ominous: “There might be a reign of terror for those who still support the Vatican Council.”
• A spokesman for Call to Action exclaimed, “People here are in a state of shock.”

The Catholic Left will again be in a state of shock once the new pope is named. Having lost on virtually every issue that excites them—and nothing excites them more than sex—they are now bracing for more bad news. What they want has already been tried: they want the Catholic Church to adopt the teachings of the mainline Protestant denominations. Someone needs to tell them (gently, of course) that it didn’t work—they’re all in free fall.