Bill Donohue comments on the Guinness boycott:

Three months ago today, on St. Patrick’s Day, we called for a boycott of Guinness. We did so because the night before the march in New York City, Guinness announced that it was pulling its sponsorship of the parade because gays were banned from marching (this is a lie).

It looks like the boycott is a success. We did an online survey of pub owners in many cities, and the results are as follows:

• 75 report a decrease in sales
• 24 report no difference in sales
• 4 report an increase in sales

From what we have determined, it appears that the decrease in sales is due to three factors: (a) there is a drop off in sales following St. Patrick’s Day (b) the increase in the sales of craft beers is hurting Guinness and (c) the boycott is working. Here is a sample of the responses:

• “April-May 2014: We sold 1,030 pints; April-May 2013: We sold 1,245 pints”
• “I have switched to other stouts”
• “Holding back on buying Guinness”
• “Our sales are down 3-4%”
• “I was gonna pull Guinness but instead I put Murphy’s in beside it”
• “I own 12 bars in Manhattan and I will let you know that we are disgusted with Guinness”
• “My Guinness sales have declined by about 40%”
• “I sold my stock in Diageo when I first heard the news”

We will notify officials at Diageo, the Guinness owner, of our results. We will also send them the names of thousands who signed our petition. Many thanks to everyone for participating in this boycott. Please keep it up. This concludes this phase of our campaign. Look for future announcements.

Contact Alix Dunn at Diageo: Alix.Dunn@diageo.com

Bill Donohue comments on Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s opposition to the March for Marriage later this week:

Rep. Nancy Pelosi does not simply reject the Catholic Church’s teachings on marriage, abortion, and contraception—she is a rabid foe of the Church’s positions. Now she has gone beyond her usual stance by lecturing her archbishop on the folly of marriage, properly understood.

On June 19, San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone will speak at a Washington rally organized by the National Organization for Marriage. Pelosi is urging him to cancel his plans because the event is not supported by her homosexual friends. Her unmitigated arrogance was on full display when she invoked a remark by Pope Francis. “If someone is gay and is searching for the Lord and has good will,” the Holy Father said, “then who am I to judge him?”

The pope’s comment had absolutely nothing to do with the institution of marriage; he was addressing homosexual individuals. Moreover, he said nothing that any of his predecessors would have found disagreeable. Here is what he has said about marriage: “The image of God is the married couple: the man and the woman; not only the man, not only the woman, but both of them together.” Someone ought to read that to Pelosi. The pope did not say that the image of God is the married couple of a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. That’s because such unions have been denied by nature, and by nature’s God, of creating a family.

When gays go naked in the streets of San Francisco, and mock Catholicism in patently obscene ways, Pelosi is never offended. What offends her is her archbishop’s public defense of the Church’s teachings on marriage. Nice to know what her moral compass looks like.

Contact Pelosi’s communications director, Drew Hammill: drew.hammill@mail.house.gov

Bill Donohue comments on the latest developments in the Catholic League’s boycott of Guinness:

An additional 336 more Irish pubs along the West Coast have been contacted to join our boycott of Guinness, including pubs in Seattle, Portland, Los Angeles, San Diego and Denver.

To sign our Boycott Guinness Petition click here.

Contact Alix Dunn at Diageo, parent company of Guinness: Alix.Dunn@diageo.com

NOTE: ON JUNE 17, WE WILL POST THE RESULTS OF OUR SURVEY OF PUB OWNERS ON THE EFFECT OUR BOYCOTT HAS HAD ON GUINNESS SALES.

Bill Donohue comments on St. Louis Archbishop Robert Carlson:

According to attorney Jeffrey Anderson, as well as Commonweal, and other media outlets, the transcript of the exchange between Anderson and Archbishop Carlson reveals that the archbishop did not know it was a crime for an adult to have sex with a child. They are all wrong.

Prior to the controversial exchange (which began with a question regarding mandatory reporting laws—see pp. 108-09 of the transcript), Anderson asked Carlson several questions about Tom Adamson (a homosexual priest who had sex with teenage males). Carlson said, “I remember he was accused of sexual abuse. That’s the trial I participated in.” (See p. 34.) Having said as much, it is simply impossible to believe that Carlson did not know it was against the law for an adult to have sex with a minor.

Anderson also asked, “And you also knew when first degree criminal sexual conduct is written and recorded, that is the most serious of the sex crimes against a child. You know that?” To which Carlson said, “Correct.” (See pp. 98-99.) This is further proof that Carlson knew what the law was; this was also said prior to the controversial exchange.

After the exchange in question, Anderson asks Carlson, “But you knew a priest touching the genitals of a kid to be a crime; did you not?” Carlson answered, “Yes.” (See p. 145.)

Further exculpatory proof can be found on pp. 17, 23, 34, 74, 113, 114, 115, and 132. On eight different occasions Carlson restated to Anderson that he told relatives of the victims to go to the police. He wouldn’t have done so unless he knew a crime may have been committed.

All of this is available online. But a combination of malice, ignorance, and laziness (depending on the source) prevents the truth from being told. Quite frankly, Archbishop Carlson has been framed.

Bill Donohue comments on how Commonweal is treating St. Louis Archbishop Robert Carlson:

It is pathetic to read how Commonweal, home to Catholic dissidents, is straining to put the worst possible face on St. Louis Archbishop Robert Carlson’s exchange with Jeffrey Anderson. Every objective observer who has ever tracked Anderson knows that this lawyer has a pathological hatred of the Catholic Church. So when he locks horns with an archbishop—any bishop will do—we know what to expect. Sadly, we also know what to expect from some on the Catholic left: when in doubt, side with Anderson’s interpretation.

On June 11, Dennis Coday at the National Catholic Reporter essentially offered the account by the St. Louis Archdiocese regarding a controversial exchange between Anderson and Carlson. He should have stopped there. Instead, later in the day he walked back his piece, saying Grant Gallicho at Commonweal may have been right when he accepted Anderson’s version.

At issue is whether Carlson was responding to a question regarding mandatory reporting laws, or a question about the criminal nature of sex between an adult and a child. Carlson maintains that he was responding to the former question; Anderson claims he was responding to the latter.

This entire controversy erupted because of something that neither Commonweal nor the Reporter has addressed: Anderson intentionally clipped that part of the video exchange he had with Carlson so as to convince the public that Carlson didn’t know it was against the law for an adult to have sex with a child. Instead of blasting Anderson for his unethical distortion, Gallicho not only takes Anderson’s side, he speaks with derision against Carlson’s lawyer (e.g, “defense attorneys aren’t too keen on compound questions”).

I will have more to say on this matter. We have the evidence that will settle the issue.

Bill Donohue comments on media bias against St. Louis Archbishop Robert J. Carlson:

On June 9, attorney Jeff Anderson released video clips from a May 23 deposition transcript of Archbishop Carlson. It was vintage Anderson: he misrepresented the truth. What the media did, led by the editorial board of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, was to echo the distortion.

The Post-Dispatch editorial said the following: “Mr. Anderson asked the archbishop if at the time [1984], he knew it was a crime for an adult to engage in sex with a child. ‘I’m not sure whether I knew it was a crime or not,’ Archbishop Carlson replied. ‘I understand today it is a crime.'” The editorial then hammered Carlson for his response.

What actually happened was quite different. The lead question in this exchange was never shown on the video clip. The question was: “Well, mandatory reporting laws went into effect across the nation in 1973, Archbishop.” At this point, Carlson’s lawyer, Charles Goldberg, interjected, “I’m going to object to the form of that question.” Anderson said he wanted to finish the question, and Goldberg agreed. Anderson then said to Carlson, “And you knew at all times, while a priest, having been ordained in 1970, it was a crime for an adult to engage in sex with a kid. You knew that right?” Goldberg jumped in again: “I’m going to object to the form of that question now. You’re talking about mandatory reporting.” Anderson agreed to rephrase it.

The Post-Dispatch editorial picks up at this point, never indicating that the question was predicated on Carlson’s knowledge of mandatory reporting laws in the 1980s. In other words, the video clip was rigged by Anderson to make the archbishop look as if he didn’t know it was a crime for an adult to have sex with a kid, and the media, led by the Post-Dispatch, published Anderson’s propaganda as if it were true. It is obvious that the media never independently verified Anderson’s selective account. Worse, the Post-Dispatch has refused to apologize to the archbishop. The editorial board is a professional disgrace.

Contact Gilbert Bailon, editor-in-chief of the Post-Dispatch: gbailon@post-dispatch.com

Bill Donohue comments on the latest developments in the Catholic League’s boycott of Guinness:

An additional 260 Irish pubs across the south have been asked to join the boycott of Guinness. Pubs in the largest cities of Georgia, Florida, Texas and Louisiana have been contacted about the boycott.

We will continue to announce additional cities where the pub owners will be asked to join our boycott.

To sign our Boycott Guinness Petition click here.

Contact Alix Dunn at Diageo, parent company of Guinness: Alix.Dunn@diageo.com

Bill Donohue comments on a bill that is close to being submitted to North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory for consideration:

North Carolina is set to pass a bill that would ensure the religious liberty rights of school administrators, teachers, and students. If it is adopted, it would prove to be a useful model for every state.

The bill unanimously passed the State Senate last year, and then passed 106-9 this week in the House. Because an amendment to the bill was passed in the House that allows school employees to “adopt a respectful posture,” it was sent back to the Senate for approval. If it succeeds there, it will go to Governor McCrory for his signature.

The ACLU is questioning why more religious liberty rights for students are needed. Evidently, when it comes to religious rights—unlike gay rights—it is possible to have too many.

The bill is modeled on the rules outlined at the federal level. In 2003, under President George W. Bush, the Department of Education issued a document, “Guidance on Constitutionally Protected Prayer in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools,” that detailed the First Amendment religious liberty rights of school personnel and students. In 1995, President Bill Clinton issued a “Memorandum on Religion in Schools” that protected these rights.

Unfortunately, radical secularists continue to violate the spirit and the letter of the law, necessitating stronger rights for religious expression in the schools. Indeed, what triggered the North Carolina bill was the decision of a teacher in an elementary school who told a student to remove a reference to God in a poem for a Veteran’s Day event.

It is not a good sign that we have to question whether a teacher can respectfully bow his head at a student-organized religious event. It’s a sure bet that if an objecting teacher raised his middle finger in protest, the ACLU would defend him on free speech grounds. No matter, we anticipate a victory.

Bill Donohue sent the following letter today to Mr. Jeff Vaughn, Principal, Bellingham High School in Bellingham, Washington about one of his teachers, Teri Grimes:

As president of the nation’s largest Catholic civil rights organization, it is my responsibility to fight anti-Catholicism in all of its manifestations. An incident happened recently at your school that is among the most vulgar expressions of anti-Catholicism that I have encountered in some time.

Allegedly, Teri Grimes told a “joke” at an awards ceremony that was laced with profanity. That is bad enough, but what caught my eye was her rank anti-Catholic bigotry. “The plane was going down and the teacher says we have to save the children,” Ms. Grimes said. “The attorney says ‘F*** the children’ and the priest says, ‘OOOOH—Do we have time for that?'”

We live in a day and age when comments such as this, if told about other segments of the population, would merit sanctions; an apology would never do. Catholics expect that the same sanctions that would be levied against a teacher who made bigoted remarks against others be applied. To do otherwise would be to counsel discrimination. And that is more than a moral issue—it is a legal matter.

Contact Principal Vaughn: Jeff.Vaughn@bellinghamschools.org

Bill Donohue comments on last night’s edition of “Chelsea Lately” on the E! network:

Chelsea Handler and guest Ryan Stout attacked homosexual priests last night on her show. The occasion was Pope Francis’ recent statement advising young married couples not to see cats and dogs as an adequate substitute for children. Chelsea responded, “Yeah, that’s the point! And like you would know about having children—you’re a gay priest.” Stout followed up by saying that for these priests, “cats aren’t the same as kids.”

Just because homosexuals cannot naturally produce children, and priests take a vow of celibacy, this is no excuse for Handler to play into the stereotype that gay priests have no business counseling parents about childrearing. It is also no excuse for Stout to paint them as predators.

Such sweeping condemnations are not humorous. Had they simply confined their remarks to homosexuals, and not to gay priests, their gay bashing would appear more transparent. As it is, their comments are both anti-gay, and anti-Catholic. That’s quite a combo.

Contact: E! PR director, John Rizzotti: John.Rizzotti@nbcuni.com