Bill Donohue comments on the decision by St. Paul and Minneapolis Archbishop John Nienstedt not to resign:

It’s all about homosexuality. Ever since Archbishop Nienstedt criticized the pro-gay film, “Brokeback Mountain,” he has been targeted by homosexual activists all over the nation. So it is hardly surprising to read a story on him in today’s New York Times that cites his take on the movie. Had he liked it, and had he been silent on the subject of gay marriage, no one would be calling for his resignation.

If there is one area where critics have a point it is the handling by archdiocesan officials, prior to Nienstedt’s tenure, of two disturbed priests: there were enough red flags early on to warrant a more punitive approach. What these critics fail to say, however, is that the red flags involved homosexuality. At least in one case, it appears that the priest was protected precisely because he was gay. This is indefensible.

Further proof that homosexuality is the real issue driving the foes of Nienstedt can be found in today’s Star Tribune and Pioneer Press, two newspapers in the Twin Cities. Both asked him yesterday what he does in bed and with whom. He told the former, “No, I’m not gay. And I’m not anti-gay.” When the latter asked if he had had sex with men since becoming archbishop, he said, “No. Not even before.”

We have hit a new low when journalists descend to the level of probing puritans. They would put a camera in his bedroom if they could. If these same reporters spent more time trying to out Nienstedt’s anonymous accusers—instead of trying to out his sex life—justice would be served. But that is not their interest, which is why injustice reigns supreme.

Bill Donohue comments on dissident Catholics:

Dissident Catholics are now attacking the composition of the Catholic Church for being Catholic. The problem they have identified—and here I am talking about the editorial board of the National Catholic Reporter—is the Synod of Bishops. What’s wrong with it? It is nothing but a “tiny representation of humanity, celibate and exclusively male.” And why is this demographic so revolting? Because in the eyes of this body, “humans are reduced to the level of baboons.” Got it.

In October, the Synod of Bishops will discuss family issues. For most people, that means the discussion will revolve around fathers, mothers, and children. But for the Reporter, this is another problem. Like many media outlets and pundits these days, this newspaper has gone gay crazy. To be exact, it is furious over the Church’s teachings tying sexual activity to procreation. “Love and procreation are reduced to biological necessity,” they complain. Notice they didn’t quote anyone.

The dissidents wax poetic saying the bishops simply do not understand a “community of love.” And what is that? “It is about far more than producing offspring.” So what is it about? “Responsible parenthood involves so much more than making certain that each instance of sexual expression could result in another child.” They’re getting warmer.

So where is this leading? “And dare we mention the reality that keeps pressing on us with a logic that seems to be accepted more and more by segments of the community (would that be the “community of love”?)—homosexuals in a committed, loving relationship?” You got it—all dissident roads lead to homosexuality.

What accounts for them acting out? They are alternating between rage and depression. They thought Pope Francis would usher in their dream—the Protestantization of the Catholic Church—but instead they have come to the conclusion that they will not get their way this fall. But only a baboon would have thought they were going to win in the first place.

Bill Donohue comments on how the Library of Congress has handled complaints about the flyer for its presentation on the Reformation scheduled for July 31:

The first reaction to our earlier news release on this subject was defensive and sophomoric. We received a phone call from the chief of the Rare Books Division saying he has been “inundated” with criticism by people who are upset with a “600-year-old image” that he says is not anti-Catholic. He failed to say why a drawing of the pope as Satan might not be seen as offensive. If I were to draw a picture of his loved ones depicting them as Satan, perhaps a light bulb would go off in his head. Perhaps.

The second reaction was more mature: the bigoted depiction of the pope as Satan has been deleted. Click here to see the revised flyer. They could have saved themselves a lot of angst had they acted more responsibly in the first place.

One more thing: Mr. Rare Books who called our office ended his conversation by asking, “Is the Catholic League connected to Bill Donohue?” When he found out the answer, he replied, “That explains a lot.” And it explains a lot about him that he has to be told how to do his job.

Bill Donohue comments on President Obama’s remarks last night at the White House honoring Eid-al-Fitr, marking the end of Ramadan:

Last night the president said that Eid “reminds us of the many achievements and contributions of Muslim Americans to building the very fabric of our nation and strengthening the core of our democracy.” He would have done us a service had he enumerated them. “That is why we stand with people of all faiths,” he continued, “here at home and around the world, to protect and advance their rights to prosper, and we welcome their commitment to giving back to their communities.”

No, Mr. President, you do not stand with “people of all faiths” in protecting and advancing human rights. As you speak, Christians are being beheaded all over the Middle East because they are Christians, and those carrying out this mass murder are doing so in the name of Islam. Yet you continue to say and do absolutely nothing about these unspeakable crimes. Do Christian lives mean so little to you?

When I type “President Obama Speaks Out,” or “Speaks Against,” in the search engines of Bing, Google, and Yahoo, the sentence automatically closes with such objects as “Trayvon Martin,” “Kanye West,” “Fox News,” and “Bullying.” I can search in vain to find you condemning the genocidal slaughter of Christians by Muslims.

Ditto for Jews. Muslim terrorists are killing Jews in Israel and their representatives have pledged to wipe Jews off the face of the earth. Yet your administration spends most of its time lecturing Israelis to be patient. About what? Being bombed because they are Jews? Do Jewish lives mean so little to you?

No one wants you to insult Muslim Americans in the White House, but you had an opportunity to at least call on them to speak out about what their people are doing in the Middle East, and you blew it. Instead, you decided to patronize them for all their contributions to human rights.

Bill Donohue comments on a presentation offered on July 31 at the Library of Congress, “The Book and the Reformation,” sponsored by the Rare Book and Special Collections Division:

It is hardly inappropriate to sponsor an event on the Reformation, but there is something offensive going on when the Library of Congress flags it in a particularly anti-Catholic way. To be specific, the flyer shows a drawing of the pope as Satan; an inscription above reads, “Ego sum Papa,” or “I am the Pope.” To view the flyer click here.

It is not certain what the summer intern will say in his presentation, but it is clear that someone at the Library of Congress has done this prestigious institution a disservice. Someone should be held accountable for this bigoted flyer.

Contact Gayle Osterberg, the communications director: gosterberg@loc.gov

Bill Donohue comments on yesterday’s editorial in the Minneapolis Star Tribune seeking the ouster of St. Paul and Minneapolis Archbishop John Nienstedt:

He has been charged with offenses and found innocent. He has broken no law. He is the subject of unsubstantiated accusations. Most of his accusers remain anonymous. He has triggered several investigations of himself seeking exoneration. Why, then, has he angered so many people? Largely because he believes in marriage between a man and a woman. Make no mistake about it: if Nienstedt were perceived to be a friend of gay marriage, the campaign against him would not be happening.

Now the Star Tribune has jumped on the bandwagon. The editors know they are fishing in foreign waters. “We’ve been hesitant to make this call until now for two reasons. We consider it presumptuous for a secular news organization to advise a church about internal matters. And just two years ago, the Star Tribune Editorial Board and Nienstedt openly quarreled about the ballot question that would have constitutionally banned same-sex marriage in this state.”

The Star Tribune is twice right: it is presumptuous of a secular newspaper to busy itself in the internal affairs of any religious institution. If it were reversed, if Archbishop Nienstedt called for an editorial board member of the Star Tribune to step down, the word “presumptuous” would not be chosen: a word such as “obscene” would roll off their lips. And as indicated, it is simply impossible to understand this attempt to steamroll Nienstedt absent his embrace of marriage, properly understood. So it is hardly suprising that this newspaper would now choose to pile on.

This marks a low point for the Star Tribune. Quite frankly, its credibility is shot. But I would bet my last dollar that in the upcoming months it will run a great story, perhaps more than one, on some nun or priest who tilts their way. That’s the way these people work.

Contact D.J. Tice at the editorial board: dtice@startribune.com

Bill Donohue comments on recent jokes made on TV about religion:

We know that every time there is a Christian holiday, jokes about Christianity proliferate. Ramadan ended yesterday, so it is a good time to see how TV hosts treated Islam over the last four weeks, vis-a-vis Catholicism.

Not unexpectedly, Ramadan was not an occasion for jokes about Islam. Over the last month, four jokes were told about Islam: Bill Maher, Jon Stewart, Jimmy Fallon, and “Saturday Night Live” each made one, but only one of them—Maher’s—was offensive.

By contrast, even though there were no Christian holidays during this period, there were 33 jokes made about Catholicism, 13 of which were offensive. Those who made the most offensive jokes were Bill Maher, David Letterman, and Tosh. Those who cracked jokes that were uniformly inoffensive were Seth Meyers, Jimmy Fallon, Conan O’Brien, Stephen Colbert, and “Saturday Night Live.”

If Meyers, Fallon, Conan, Colbert, and SNL can joke about Catholicism in a light-hearted manner, surely the likes of Maher and Letterman can do the same. That they refuse to do so speaks volumes about their character.

Bill Donohue comments on Jennifer Haselberger, the prime source of accusations against St. Paul and Minneapolis Archbishop John Nienstedt:

The most viciously anti-Catholic group in the nation is the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests (SNAP). On August 1, it will celebrate its 25th anniversary at a Chicago conference. Jennifer Haselberger will be one of its featured speakers. This gives her a chance to reunite with David Clohessy, the anti-Catholic head of SNAP; they were both speakers at a 2003 conference sponsored by Rent-A-Priest (priests who left to marry).

She grew up Catholic, but quickly turned against the Church. According to her father, “after Jennifer was confirmed…she declared that she’d had enough and was never going to church again.” But she did. Indeed, she went to St. Catherine University. That’s where she met her mentor, Anne Maloney, known as “an outspoken Catholic feminist.” That influence was evident in Haselberger’s 2002 article in The American Feminist where she bemoaned the income disparity between men and women. More recently, she claimed that the Archdiocese wasn’t paying her enough, even though she was paid more than all the male canon lawyers in the organization.

In 2004, Haselberger was awarded a Ph.D. and a canon law degree. Her canon law thesis was titled, “Sources of Legitimization of the Rent-A-Priest Movement.” She claims she was critical of this group, yet for years this entity flagged a statement by her on its website saying it was “acting in a canonically valid way” by offering the sacraments. When questioned about this, she said, “I have never attempted to have it removed largely because the wisdom of many dioceses has been that we only look bad when trying to take them on.” She adds that this “has never been a problem for me.” (My italics.) She did not say why it was not a problem for a rogue organization to allegedly misrepresent her work.

Fact: Dioceses have excommunicated priests who belong to Rent-A-Priest. Moreover, because these priests are in schism, their excommunication is automatic. Maybe she will address this at her upcoming SNAP conference.

Bill Donohue comments on an editorial in today’s St. Cloud Times urging Catholics in Minnesota to press for the ouster of St. Paul and Minneapolis Archbishop John Nienstedt:

This editorial is based heavily on the uncontested testimony of a “church lawyer.” Because Jennifer Haselberger’s testimony was never challenged by a lawyer for the archdiocese, we have no way of knowing whether her version of events is correct. We do know, having gone through her affidavit, that even she admits to at least 17 occasions when her version was not shared by others with whom she worked.

The editorial accuses the archdiocese of a pattern of “deception, intimidation and silence.” This is similar to Haselberger’s position, stated at the beginning of her testimony, that she endured “months of harassment, threats, and intimidation—examples of which I will provide later in this affidavit.” Except she doesn’t: She provides not a single example of being threatened by anyone. Did the editorial board members even bother to read her account?

What about being harassed? Here’s an example of what she means. On p. 53, she says a priest “constantly harassed us to conclude the investigation [into alleged wrongdoing].” Did her co-workers also feel harassed? Is it harassment when an employee is told to “get moving”? Apparently, Haselberger does have a problem with getting things done on time. After all, she was suspended precisely because of her inability to complete an assignment. It gets better.

Haselberger says her suspension was an example of “intimidation.” In fact, she had her suspension vacated and was offered three options on how it should be handled. Once again, she failed to respond on time, which is why ten of her vacation days were used and not restored. This is what she says constitutes “intimidation.”

More to come on Haselberger.

On last night’s episode of “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart,” the host mocked Fox News for a soft interview with Sen. John McCain. Pretending to be a reporter, Stewart asks of himself, “Is Jon Stewart fair to Republicans?” Although this skit had absolutely nothing to do with Catholicism, Stewart managed to turn it into another one of his vintage Catholic-bashing moments.

Stewart: “Does the pope s*** [bleeped] in the woods? Because if not, not only am I not fair to Republicans, I think a bear wearing a hat gave me Communion.”

[Next is an image of Stewart kneeling with his hands folded in prayer, and a large bear dressed as the pope holding a Host and ciborium; Stewart is kneeling waist high to the bear.]

Stewart: “I’m not going to make that other joke that I was just about to make—it was about one of us not using our teeth.”

Bill Donohue replies: “If I belonged to some other religion, I would do more than knock his teeth out. Lucky for Stewart, I am a Catholic.”

Contact Steve Albani, head of Comedy Central’s Communications: steve.albani@cc.com