Bill Donohue comments on the two political parties and Pope Francis:

There is a front-page story in today’s New York Times titled, “For G.O.P., Visit by Pope Comes with Tensions.” Last month the Times ran a front-page story, “Pope’s Position on the Climate Tests the G.O.P.”

The Times is not alone in promoting the idea that Pope Francis has left the Republicans in a jam. Politico, Huffington Post, The Atlantic, Salon, the Economist, CNN, The Week, and the Washington Post have done similar stories. Indeed, last month the latter ran a story on this issue that was an echo of its March 19, 2013 piece, “Republicans Have a Pope Francis problem.”

There is not a single story explaining why the Democrats have a pope problem. Yet an examination of the most prominent public policy issues addressed by the Church suggests it is the Democrats who have the bigger problem.

The following Catholic public policy issues tend to favor the Republicans: abortion; embryonic stem cell research; euthanasia (doctor-assisted suicide); human cloning; same-sex marriage; religious liberty (conscience rights); and school choice (vouchers).

The following Catholic public policy issues tend to favor the Democrats: the death penalty; climate change; workers’ rights (unions); immigration; and healthcare.

Judging from this list, it seems that Pope Francis is slightly more a problem for Democrats than he is for Republicans. In fact, he is a much bigger problem: not all issues are of equal moral weight. For example, abortion, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning, and euthanasia are all declared by the Church to be “intrinsically evil.” None of the issues that favor the Democrats merit such a designation.

If the media were honest, it would start asking what the Democrats are going to do about their Pope Francis problem.

Bill Donohue comments on the apology issued by Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards:

It is axiomatic that apologies should never be given in instances where there is no wrongdoing. That is why Cecile Richards’ apology was unnecessary. Yes, one of her employees admitted to harvesting the organs of unborn babies for commercial purposes. But this is routine at the abortion mill. That the female doctor was cavalier is undeniable—she explained her work with the aplomb of a Nazi—but she was only expressing her sincere, and long nurtured, sentiments.

“Our top priority,” Richards said, “is the compassionate care that we provide. In the video [which shows Dr. Deborah Nucatola speaking about her work while imbibing] one of our staff members speaks in a way that does not reflect that compassion. This is unacceptable, and I personally apologize for the staff member’s tone and statements.”

Even if the apology is unwarranted, the clarification is much appreciated. It is important to speak clinically about hawking a baby’s heart—that shows compassion—but to speak casually is wrong. Richards’ point is salient: casual talk is what we would expect from a pimp selling his girls on the street. Even so, to single out Dr. Nucatola is discriminatory.

Abby Johnson, who once worked for Planned Parenthood, admits that when she worked there she would “go out for margaritas” at the end of the day with her colleagues and chatter about how their day went. “We would plainly talk about harvesting fetal parts as if we were talking about harvesting a field of corn,” she said.

In 1971, Albert Speer, Hitler’s closest confidant, explained how it was possible for him to orchestrate the genocide of Jews: “I did not hate them. I was indifferent to them.” Yes, he said, “by depersonalizing them” he was able to murder Jews with the same lack of conscience as a sociopath. Or a doctor who works for Planned Parenthood.

Contact Planned Parenthood: info@ppnyc.com

Bill Donohue comments on a story in today’s Philadelphia Inquirer:

On the front page of the B Section in today’s Philadelphia Inquirer there is a contrived story about a former Catholic school teacher who was fired once it was discovered that he planned to “marry” his boyfriend. Why is the story contrived? Because it was trotted out to show a pattern of Catholic insensitivity to gay “married” teachers: In the news lately is a story about a woman teacher at a Catholic school who did not have her contract renewed because she said she was “married” to her girlfriend.

Here’s a few nuggets for the ethicists at the Inquirer to think about.

Catholic schools, like all private institutions, sectarian and secular, have house rules. Those who don’t like them are free to go someplace else. That’s what diversity means. No one is forced to teach in a Catholic school and every person who works there knows, or should know, what the house rules are. Those who violate these strictures should be fired. More than that, they should be denied victim status.

Orthodox Jewish schools and Muslim schools have the exact same teachings and policies on gay marriage that Catholic schools have. So why is it that only Catholic schools are chosen for scrutiny?

The teacher who was let go was not a math teacher (though it wouldn’t matter if she were): she was the director of religious education. Does anyone think that religious schools run by Muslims and Jews would keep a director of religious education who rejects Islamic and Judaic teachings?

If a Catholic school fired a teacher found to belong to a racist organization, the Inquirer would be commending it. It may come as a shock to the editors but Archbishop Charles Chaput has no intention of checking to see if they approve of any Catholic school house rules.

Contact the reporter who wrote today’s story, Kathy Boccella: kboccella@phillynews.com

Bill Donohue comments on remarks made by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy at the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference yesterday:

Justice Kennedy compared the outcry over the recent same-sex marriage decision to the hostile reaction following the 1989 high court ruling that legalized flag burning. He noted that over time the initial outburst of anger over the latter issue eventually subsided; he predicted that the same will hold true regarding the former.

Kennedy ruled the wrong way on both cases, and his analogy is also wrong.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black said he was a First Amendment absolutist, yet even he, in a case prior to the 1989 decision, ruled that flag burning was conduct, not speech; thus was it undeserving of First Amendment protection. Kennedy, on the other hand, said of the man who condemned and burned the flag, that “his acts were speech”; he saw no difference between public denunciations and setting fire to the flag.

In the gay marriage case, Kennedy again showed how asocial his vision of reality is. For him, marriage is not a social institution that exists sui generis (independent of the two parties); rather, it is simply an arrangement between two adults. This explains his preoccupation with individual autonomy.

Kennedy screws up again by comparing the two cases in terms of their social consequences. It is true that most Americans did not continue to be outraged over flag burning. But a better analogy to the gay marriage ruling would be the 1973 decision legalizing abortion. Forty-two years later the nation is still polarized over this judicially contrived right, with no end in sight. Similarly, the public outcry over the judicially contrived right of two men to marry is not going to dissipate.

Abortion speaks to life and death. Marriage speaks to procreation. When elites toy with either they are playing with fire. Now they’ve toyed with both. This is an inferno that threatens to engulf us all.

Bill Donohue comments on the exoneration of Father Leo Riley:

On March 17, I wrote a news release titled, “Fr. Leo Riley Also Has Rights.” I gave four reasons why I believed that this priest was innocent of accusations made against him. Yesterday, he was cleared of all charges of wrongdoing by an independent investigative unit.

I have never met, nor have I ever corresponded with, this Naples, Florida priest, but I felt from the beginning that he was innocent. Here’s why.

First, I wondered why it would take 30 years to elapse before an accusation of sexual assault would be made; others may want to delude themselves into thinking that “repressed memories” are real, but I am not among them. Second, if Father Riley were truly guilty it is likely that others would have made accusations against him—he is 58—yet the record shows that this was the first and only time anyone charged him with abuse.

Third, I mentioned the fact that “there are many Father Rileys all over the nation who have had their reputations smeared by vindictive men looking to take advantage of the hostile climate that exists against priests.” Fourth, I emphasized that he was entitled to a presumption of innocence.

Father Riley denied the allegations from the get-go and even offered to take a polygraph test; he passed with flying colors. The investigation, which was triggered by the Archdiocese of Dubuque (Father Riley was in ministry there when the alleged offenses took place), was conducted by a former FBI agent. It should be noted that Archbishop Michael Jackels was under no legal obligation to do anything—the case was beyond the statute of limitations.

Officials at the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) took the occasion to condemn Father Riley again. They should instead apologize for their maliciousness.

Please keep Father Riley and all priests in your prayers.

Bill Donohue comments on the cover-up involving gay leader Terrence Bean:

Last November, Terrence Bean was taken into custody in Portland, Oregon following an indictment by a jury that charged him with multiple sex crimes against minors. Now additional child sexual abuse charges have been made against him. Why isn’t the media covering this? Because he’s a prominent gay leader, that’s why.

Bean is the co-founder of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the most influential gay group in the nation; he is also a big donor to President Obama and even flew on Air Force One with him. The Associated Press (AP) chose not to cover the latest allegations, but not because it has no interest in new charges against alleged sex offenders: it does if the accused is a priest.

On June 28, AP reported on new charges against James Rupp, a former Michigan priest who was accused of sexually assaulting boys decades ago. On April 8, AP reported on new charges against Rev. Joseph Maurizio Jr., a Pennsylvania priest accused of molesting boys in Honduras. But there was no AP story on the latest charges against Bean. The AP bias is even worse than this.

On July 7, the day before Bean was hit with new charges, his lawyers filed a motion to have the multiple sex charges against him dismissed. Guess who covered that? AP, of course. The cover-up doesn’t end there.

HRC has no listing of Bean on its website, and it even lies about his role in founding the organization: it lists Steve Endean as the founder, when, in fact, he was a co-founder with Bean. That’s not an error—it’s disinformation. And by the way, guess what happened to Endean? He died of AIDS in 1993, having contracted the disease in 1985.

We are registering a complaint with AP. As for HRC, it’s not worth our time. But we will be sure to let them know that we’re on to them.

Bill Donohue comments on critics of Father Junípero Serra; the 18th century priest will be canonized by Pope Francis this fall:

Politics, laced with emotion, is motivating the anti-Serra crowd. In fact, Father Serra has become the whipping boy for left-wing, anti-Catholic activists bent on using his life story to beat up on Western Civilization, the United States, and the Catholic Church. Just as bad, the most sweeping and condemnatory generalizations are being made without rebuttal by the media.

Over the weekend there was a staged, and poorly attended, anti-Father Serra event at the Mission San Juan Bautista in California; it is one of the missions founded by the heroic priest. Leaders from the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band and the American Indian Movement blamed Catholic missionaries for the deaths of over 100,000 Native Americans. The event was long on accusations but short on evidence.

To be sure, Native Americans were unjustly treated, but not, in most instances, by the missionaries. It was the Spanish authorities and soldiers who were guilty of wrongdoing, not the priests. To blame Father Serra is itself an injustice: he did more than anyone to stand up for the rights of Indians, winning concessions from recalcitrant officials. Demonizing the one man who fought to secure human rights for Native Americans should be denounced by everyone.

The media are strikingly incurious when it comes to assessing those who claim to speak for Native Americans. To be explicit, organizations such as the American Indian Movement and the Mexica Movement are notoriously unreliable, yet they are extended legitimacy by reporters and commentators. These groups seek division and are impervious to reason.

Pope Francis chose the right priest to canonize; the ceremony will take place on September 23 in Washington, D.C. To read my account of Father Serra see our website.

Bill Donohue comments on Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback’s executive order securing religious liberty:

Gov. Brownback has won the support of four Kansas bishops in his effort to secure religious liberty for all the state’s citizens. His executive order, necessitated by the Supreme Court’s decision to legalize gay marriage, offers protection to churches, clergy, religious leaders, and organizations: they cannot be forced by government to violate their religiously grounded convictions on marriage. Not only does it protect against attempts to strip churches of their tax exempt status, it bars state agencies from altering contracts.

Kansas City Archbishop Joseph Naumann, Dodge City Bishop John Brungardt, Salina Bishop Edward Weisenburger, and Wichita Bishop Carl Kemme signed a statement in support of Brownback’s executive order. “When five individuals on the Supreme Court redefined the institution of marriage for the entire country,” they said, “the Kansas marriage amendment approved by 70% of the voters in 2005 was struck down.” The bishops stood their ground on refusing to perform gay weddings. Importantly, they did not stop there. “In this country religious freedom has meant the right to live one’s faith in one’s daily life, at home and at work, in private and in public,” they added.

Already critics are saying that we don’t need more protection for religious liberty. Ironically, those saying this, such as Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, are the very people we need protections from: they are pushing to crush our First Amendment right to religious freedom. Given their agenda, we can’t have enough rights.

No one is saying that homosexuals will be denied a marriage license. But no one should be coerced into giving his consent to gay weddings, either. Those who say that gay marriages should enjoy the same rights as interracial marriages are mistaken: there never was a plausible religious objection to the latter, but there most certainly is to the former.

Bill Donohue comments on the resolution to put on hold the removal of a statue of Fr. Junípero Serra from the U.S. Capitol:

The California state legislature recently announced that it will postpone a vote on the proposal to remove the statue of Fr. Serra from the U.S. Capitol. California State Senator Ricardo Lara is responsible for both authoring the proposal and requesting that the vote be postponed. Lara cited Pope Francis’ upcoming visit as the reason for the postponement.

California Assemblyman William P. Brough and Sen. Pat Bates welcomed the good news. According to a joint statement released by Brough and Bates, “Debating such a bill just before the pope’s visit would have conveyed a terrible message to him and millions of Catholics around the world, contradicting California’s reputation as a tolerant and welcoming place for all people.”

Now that the California legislature has agreed to a delay, perhaps they can take this opportunity to reconsider the proposal and drop the matter entirely. The Catholic League has contended that the opposition to Fr. Serra’s statue rises out of misunderstandings of his work and legacy. It was to correct such misunderstandings that I published the booklet, The Noble Legacy of Fr. Serra; it was distributed to interested parties in California and beyond.

John Liston, executive director of Serra International, expressed his gratitude for my effort. “I think it went a long way in assisting the California legislature to suspend the vote to remove the statue of Fr. Serra from Statuary Hall,” he said.

The Catholic League applauds the California state legislature for postponing the vote to remove Fr. Serra’s statue. It should now reconsider the entire issue.

Bill Donohue comments on the application for a marriage license by Nathan Collier securing a legal union for him and his two Montana wives:

“It’s about marriage equality,” is how Nathan Collier put it. And why not? Who among the five justices who rendered the gay marriage decision could offer a principled rebuttal? They can’t cite tradition, because that obviously means nothing. They can’t cite the role that marriage plays in procreation, because that obviously means nothing.

Collier admitted that he was “inspired” by last week’s Supreme Court decision. Why shouldn’t he be? After all, in the mind of Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the majority decision, there really is no such thing as society—all we are left with are fully atomized individuals who go about their day expressing their independence from social norms, bonds, and institutions.

The decision legalizing same-sex marriage offers no limiting principle, and that is exactly why Collier is seeking to legalize his polygamous union. Look for Tom, Dick, and Harry to apply next. After all, if Tom and Dick can marry, on what principled basis can Harry be excluded?