Bill Donohue comments on NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell’s alleged concerns over the Redskins name:

When asked about the propriety of the Washington NFL team using the name Redskins, Roger Goodell said, “If one person is offended, we have to listen.” Baloney.

Goodell didn’t listen to Catholics when we pressed him not to invite the pop star Madonna to perform at Super Bowl XLVI in 2012; she has a history of vulgar anti-Catholic statements and acts. I wrote to Goodell on October 11, 2011, when it was rumored Madonna might be invited, but before the formal invitation was extended. He never replied. (It should be noted that the NFL disinvited ‘N Sync’s JC Chasez in 2004 over concerns he might use sexual lyrics while performing.)

What is most troubling about Goodell is his willingness to listen to elites, not the people. In the circles he runs in, no doubt his Catholic friends are not offended by Madonna. But millions of others are.

The same is true with the Redskins issue. To be sure, when Native American activists and leaders are asked about Indian mascot names, they object. But they are not representative of the people. In a survey of Native Americans conducted by Sports Illustrated, 83 percent said teams should not stop using Indian nicknames, mascots, characters and symbols.

Millions of Catholics are offended by Madonna. Moreover, real Indians like Indian mascot names. Goodell is thus twice wrong.

Bill Donohue analyzes the way the print media reacted to Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis after their first six months as pontiff:

We looked at the editorials in 15 of the nation’s largest newspapers to see what they said about the current pope, and his predecessor, after their first six months in office (Pope Francis will celebrate his first six months on September 13).

The papers we examined were: Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Boston Globe, Chicago Tribune, Dallas Morning News, Denver Post, Kansas City Star, Los Angeles Times, Miami Herald, New York Times, Philadelphia Inquirer, San Francisco Chronicle, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Sun-Sentinel, USA Today, Washington Post.

There were 14 editorials on Pope Benedict XVI and 11 on Pope Francis. The difference can probably be chalked up to the familiarity of the former versus the unfamiliarity of the latter. But there were more similarities than dissimilarities.

Two segments of the population dominated the media’s interest in the two popes: homosexuals and women. In the 25 editorials, homosexuals were cited 13 times, and women 15. With the exception of a few editorials that gave faint praise to Pope Francis for not judging gays of goodwill, they were uniformly critical of the teachings of the Catholic Church on both subjects. Only two newspapers, USA Today and the Washington Post, did not mention either subject explicitly.

There is no other religion that is subjected to this kind of micro-scrutiny. The elite media react to Islam and Judaism with cautious restraint, and with voyeuristic intrusiveness to Catholicism. Yet when it comes to teachings on homosexuality and women, there is very little difference between the three monotheistic religions. Judaism is respected, Islam is feared, and Christianity—especially Catholicism—is loathed.

To read a brief analysis of each newspaper’s editorials, click here.

On September 6, the California Senate passed SB 131, the bill that makes it easier for alleged victims of sexual abuse to sue if the molestation happened when they were a minor. But it does not apply to the public sector, just to institutions such as the Catholic Church.

Bill Donohue wrote a letter today to California Governor Jerry Brown about the bill. He will decide its fate; he has until October 13. To read the letter, click here.

Bill Donohue comments on candidates for office in New York City who took their campaign to area houses of worship yesterday; the primaries are tomorrow:

Yesterday, New York City candidates took their campaigns into African-American churches all over the city.

No one seems to care, but if the reverse were true—Catholics welcoming and endorsing politicians at Mass—holy hell would ensue. It just goes to show what an utter sham this business is about violating church and state lines.

No newspaper has been more critical of Catholic priests and bishops who merely address public issues from the pulpit than the New York Times. Worse, no newspaper has been less critical of black churches for routinely thumbing their nose at the First Amendment than the New York Times. At work is more than rank political partisanship: liberal white racism explains a lot.

To read how New York City candidates stumped in churches, click here.

Bill Donohue comments on New York City Controller-candidate Scott Stringer’s sexual connections:

We know Scott Stringer voted to retain the tax-exempt status of an organized band of child rapists (click here), and that he initially voted against Megan’s Law, a registry that tracks convicted sex offenders (click here). This got me thinking: Does Stringer have any more sexual baggage? It turns out he does. His close ties to Terry Richardson, the fashion photographer who exploits women of all ages, including his own mother, is something that deserves a public airing.

Stringer has a reputation for championing women’s rights, but his record and his associations make mince meat of this claim.

Stringer’s press secretary is Audrey Gelman (she also stars in the obscene HBO show, “Girls”). Her boyfriend is Terry Richardson, and he is the link to fat cats in the fashion industry who are financing Stringer’s campaign. All of them know of Richardson’s perversions. As the Wall Street Journal said last month, Stringer has “fashion photographer Terry Richardson on his team.” Indeed, Richardson opens the doors for Gelman, who in turn “corrals” fashion industry donors to give to Stringer.

If we can judge a politician by the people on his team, then Scott Stringer’s character is deeply flawed. There is too much about Richardson’s sordid history to fit on this page. To read a summary of it, click here.

Bill Donohue comments on the latest revelations regarding New York City Controller-candidate Scott Stringer:

The New York Post reports today that Scott Stringer initially voted against Megan’s Law, the registry that tracks convicted sex offenders once they leave prison; he later voted for it. He said his vote against the law was fear that sex offenders would be driven underground. No one believes him, and with good reason: Stringer has a history of defending sex offenders.

Yesterday, I wrote an open letter to Scott Stringer asking him to come clean and tell New Yorkers the real reason why he voted to retain the tax-exempt status of Zymurgy, an affiliate of the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA); the organization, now defunct, promoted child rape. Stringer is hiding behind a bogus legal argument.

Stringer’s sexual baggage doesn’t end here. Tomorrow, I will unveil my own research on him. Stay tuned.

Want to know why I won’t let up on Stringer? Because I am sick and tired with New York elites who continue to bash the Catholic Church for the crimes of a small band of rotten priests while supporting the rights of sex offenders.

Contact Stringer: bp@manhattanbp.org

Below is the text of a letter that Catholic League president Bill Donohue wrote to Scott Stringer, the Manhattan Borough President and candidate for New York City Controller:

Hon. Scott Stringer:

The Daily News reports today that in 1996 you voted against withdrawing the tax-exempt status of Zymurgy, an organization affiliated with the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). When Zymurgy filed papers in 1994 seeking this status, it said it wanted to “foster, promote and advance greater knowledge and understanding of human sexuality….” Gov. Mario Cuomo granted the group its non-profit status; he assumed the stated intention was sincere. It was not.

When you voted against pulling the tax-exempt status of Zymurgy, you already knew that its real goal was to promote child rape, yet you did so anyway. Were it not for Attorney General Dennis Vacco, who persevered on appeal to deny the child molesting activists their tax-free status, they might still be in business.

Your spokeswoman, Audrey Gelman, said you voted the way you did for constitutional reasons. No one believes you. There is no constitutional imperative allowing an organized band of child rapists not to pay taxes. Moreover, were the lawmakers who disagreed with you, which was most of them, acting unconstitutionally? You need to educate us.

The motto of NAMBLA/Zymurgy is, “Eight Is Too Late.” That’s right—if a kid hasn’t been violated by age eight, it’s not worth the effort. This is the group you defended. We need a complete and honest response: Why did you side with them? We will blanket the Catholic community with this release, and we will disseminate your response, if you have one.

 Contact Stringer: bp@manhattanbp.org