Bill Donohue comments on why China has officially abandoned its one-child policy, and why little will change:

Since 1979, most parts of China, and most married couples, have been subjected to a one-child policy, but now the Communist government is dropping it. Ironically, it is doing so for the same reason it adopted it in the first place: demographic concerns. The policy was initiated because of the fear that unrestrained population growth would impair economic wellbeing. Now it is being nixed because of fear that low fertility rates threaten a labor shortage, which, in turn, impairs economic wellbeing.

The Chinese Communists, of course, never address the morality of abortion, forced or elected. Human rights groups such as the United Nations and Amnesty International, as well as feminist organizations, object to the coercive aspects of a one-child policy, and to residual issues, but all of them are quite content with the morality of abortion, per se.

The new policy does not ban forced abortions; it merely says that couples can have two children. Which means that the government will have to continue its practice of monitoring a woman’s menstrual cycle and fining those who are pregnant with their third child. If they are unable to pay, they will be dragged to a local clinic and injected with a lethal drug.

Ma Jian, a Chinese author, describes what happened to a woman with an unauthorized pregnancy. “For two days she writhed on the table, her hands and feet still bound with rope, waiting for her body to eject her murdered baby. In the final stage of labor, a male doctor yanked her dead fetus out by the foot, then dropped it into a garbage can. She had no money for a cab. She had to hobble home, blood dripping down her legs and staining her white sandals red.” As she points out, this is why China has the highest rate of female suicide in the world.

Some commentators, many of whom are market obsessed, are already hailing the new policy. Their utilitarian ethics is as corrupt as that of the Communists.

Bill Donohue comments on the strong reaction to an article by New York Times columnist Ross Douthat:

On October 18, the New York Times published a piece by Ross Douthat, “The Plot to Change Catholicism,” that was critical of Pope Francis and his handling of the Synod of Bishops. On October 23, the Times printed several letters on his column, most of which were critical. Pretty routine stuff. Yesterday, however, a group of professors signed a letter that was pure boilerplate, lacing the columnist for his opinions.

It is a sign of insecurity when professors have to insist on turf credentials. They did just that by exclaiming that “Mr. Douthat has no professional qualifications for writing on the subject.” It obviously doesn’t matter to them that he is a best-selling Catholic author. Moreover, if “professional qualifications” are insisted on by these (mostly) theologians, why is one of the signatories a law professor?

When readers disagree with an op-ed, they write to the letters editor. But in this case, the professors went for the jugular, going right to the top: They wrote to the “Editor of the New York Times.” Why? Their goal is not to offer another opinion; rather, it is to question Douthat’s position as a regular op-ed contributor. That is why they wrote, “This is not what we expect of The New York Times.” Read: We hold the Times to a high standard, and that excludes the reflections of conservative Catholics. This is not the voice of discerning Catholics—it is the sound of a herd.

Now we have the spectacle of America magazine’s Jim McDermott jumping on board. He is delighted with the herd. He does not see the irony in his comment objecting to a condition “in which whole groups of people are intimidated into silence.” No, he’ll settle for just one person.

Now I know it’s been a rough month for all these folks (the letter was released just as the synod ended), but that is no excuse for intolerance. Freedom of speech cannot be sacrificed on the altar of theological correctness.

Bill Donohue comments on Nancy Pelosi invoking Pope Francis to defend funding for Planned Parenthood:

Following Pope Francis’ visit to the United States, it was predictable that politicians on both sides of the aisle would invoke his words when they could plausibly be interpreted as favoring or opposing certain policies. To cite the pope when advocating policies to which he would be unequivocally morally opposed, however—like Planned Parenthood’s unconscionable marketing of body parts of aborted babies—is nothing less than obscene. Yet that is what House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi did Thursday afternoon as she argued against efforts to defund Planned Parenthood for engaging in that inhuman practice.

“They (House Republicans) will of course be wanting to defund Planned Parenthood, destroy the Affordable Care Act, dismantle newfound health security for millions of Americans,” Pelosi told a Thursday afternoon press briefing. “It doesn’t have to be this way. Instead, we could be working together recognizing a Republican Congress, a Democratic President, the ability for Democrats to use their leverage legislatively to have compromise for the good of the American people. That’s what Pope Francis told us to do.”

Really? Quite the contrary. Speaking at the United Nations on September 25—the day after his address to Congress—the pope forcefully called for “putting an end as quickly as possible” to such “baneful” practices as “the marketing of human organs and tissues.” He called for “respect for the sacredness of every human life” including “the unborn.”

That, of course, is basic and unchanging Catholic moral teaching. Maybe Rep. Pelosi, who has described herself as an “ardent, practicing Catholic,” still doesn’t get that. She needs to pick up that copy of Catholicism for Dummies that we sent her back in 2008, when she demonstrated her ignorance of Catholic Church teaching on abortion.

Bill Donohue comments on an editorial in today’s New York Times on the subject of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s remark saying that Hitler got the idea of the “final solution” from Haj Amin al-Husseini, the grand mufti of Jerusalem:

“While it is a fact that Mr. Husseini met with Hitler in search of support,” the Times editorial says, “only a handful of fringe historians have claimed, with no evidence, that he planted the idea of the ‘final solution.'”

The Times is right. As historian Kenneth R. Timmerman has noted, al-Husseini met with Hitler on November 28, 1941, and made clear his wishes. “He had gone to convince Adolf Hitler of his total dedication to the Nazi goal of extermination of the Jews,” Timmerman says, “and offered to raise an Arab legion to carry out the task in the Middle East.”

Besides this aspect of the editorial, there is another one that is of special interest to the Catholic League. I recently had an exchange with several senior Times executives [click here] demanding that they provide evidence of the incredible claim made by reporter Laura M. Holson that “Historians agree” that Father Junípero Serra (who was canonized last month by the pope) had Indians “tortured to death.” After investigating this matter thoroughly, Greg Brock, the Senior Editor for Standards, concluded that “I agree with Ms. Holson’s editors that ‘historians’ is accurate, and therefore no correction is required.”

I thanked Mr. Brock for his interest, saying, “I have just one question: Who were the ‘historians’ who claim that Fr. Serra tortured Indians?” There has been no answer, and that’s because there is no evidence.

Yet when it comes to Netanyahu’s remark, the Times is prepared to dismiss his position because it is supported by “only a handful of fringe historians” who have “no evidence.” The double standard is as sickening as it is indefensible. A correction to the Serra story is still needed.

Contact Greg Brock: senioreditor@nytimes.com

Bill Donohue comments on the bigotry that marks the effort to legalize abortion in Ireland:

On the front page of Amnesty International’s website it says, “We campaign for a world where human rights are enjoyed by all.” It is a lie: Human beings not yet born, it argues, have no human rights.

When the organization was founded in 1961, it took no position on abortion. That changed in 2007. Citing issues such as rape, it endorsed decriminalization. Predictably, that didn’t last: just last year it started a new campaign, My Body My Rights: it demands the legalization of unrestricted abortion everywhere on the planet. Now it has launched an all-out assault on Ireland’s Constitution because it protects the unborn.

Amnesty International is not content to make an impassioned case for abortion rights in Ireland. In fact, it has descended into the gutter by igniting a vicious anti-Catholic campaign. To do its dirty work it has hired Irish actor Liam Neeson; he is featured in an obscene video.

Neeson wants Ireland’s Eighth Amendment repealed because it protects the human rights of all humans. The viewer is treated to dark footage of an abandoned church, demagogically accompanied by eerie-sounding music. This tees it up for Neeson to exclaim, “A ghost haunts Ireland.” The ghost, of course, is the Catholic Church, an institution that “blindly brings suffering, even death, to the women whose lives it touches.” That they can’t make their case for killing more kids without fanning the flames of anti-Catholicism speaks volumes.

Neeson was a good choice. A few years ago, while Muslims were raping and beheading Christians, he fell in love with Islam, and almost converted. His attraction to Islam was demonstrated even earlier when he famously claimed that the Narnia series by C.S. Lewis could be interpreted as a statement about Muhammad, and not just Jesus!

Whatever it is that’s haunting Neeson is no excuse for his teaming with Amnesty International to stoke the flames of bigotry.

Contact Amnesty’s International Press Office: press@amnesty.org

Contact Neeson’s agent, Alan Nierob: anierob@rogersandcowan.com

Bill Donohue comments on an article written by Rabbi Arthur Waskow of The Shalom Center that appeared yesterday on the Huffington Post:

Rabbi Waskow is no friend of the Catholic community, and now he is back with another screed, “The Pope, the Church, Rabbis, and Women.” For starters, he is pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage. Fine. That’s his business. But Waskow is not prepared to simply disagree with the teachings of the Catholic Church on these issues—he “condemns” them.

In particular, he objects to the Church’s teaching on ordination. “We condemn the Pope’s and the Church’s ideas and actions in regard to women precisely because it reverses their theology toward the Earth.”

Now it may come as a shocker to Waskow, but the pope’s ideas and the Church’s ideas are one and the same. Here is how Pope Francis recently put it when asked about his position on sexual issues: “The position of the Church. I am a son of the Church.”

Regarding Waskow’s comment that the Church’s teachings and actions on women “reverses their theology toward the Earth,” I give up: I have no idea what he is talking about. But neither does he.

Waskow acknowledges that a fellow rabbi recently took him to task when he demanded that the Synod of Bishops should ordain women. The rabbi chastised him for getting involved in an “internal issue of the Catholic Church.” That rabbi is right.

When it comes to a public policy issue such as abortion, that is one thing—the Church is fair game for criticism. However, when it comes to a purely internal matter such as ordination, that is no one else’s business. House rules need to be respected. Waskow, unfortunately, does not respect boundaries, and he definitely has a hard time showing respect for Catholicism.

Bill Donohue comments on two reports released this week that describe religious persecution around the world:

We know that people of every religion are being targeted for murder and plunder in many parts of the world, and that the Communist regimes in China and North Korea are hotbeds of Christian persecution. But nothing compares to what is happening in the Middle East and Northern Africa. Quite simply, we are witnessing the annihilation of the Christian people.

In the U.S. Department of State’s “International Religious Freedom Report for 2014,” there is a detailed account of the many ways in which Muslim-run nations are wiping out Christianity. In the report’s Executive Summary, Christians are mentioned 23 times in 6 pages, and they are always cited as victims, never perpetrators, of religious persecution.

“In Mosul, Iraq and nearby towns,” the report says, “shortly after the takeover of the area by militants of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), Christians who had been given the choice to convert, pay a ruinous tax, or die, gathered their families and what few possessions they could carry, and sought all possible means to escape.”

The United Kingdom charity, Aid to the Church in Need, also released a report on this subject. The situation is so bad in Iraq that it concluded that Christianity may be extinct in five years. “There is not a single Christian family left in Mosul,” said an observer. “The last one was a disabled Christian woman. She stayed because she could not get out. They came to her and said you have to get out and if you don’t we will cut off your head with a sword. That was the last family.”

The annihilation of Christians is not confined to Iraq. A Syrian Catholic archbishop wrote that “My cathedral has been bombed six times and is now unusable. My home has also been hit more than 10 times. We are facing the rage of an extremist jihad: we may disappear soon.”

President Obama is in a position to lead an international effort to destroy radical Islamic terrorists. Yet he can’t even call them by name, never mind demonstrate leadership.

Bill Donohue comments on the exchange between President Barack Obama and author Marilynne Robinson that will be published in the November 5 edition of the New York Review of Books:

The subject was Christianity. Here is a question that President Obama asked Robinson:

“How do you reconcile the idea of faith being really important to you and you caring a lot about taking faith seriously with the fact that, at least in our democracy and our civic discourse, it seems as if folks who take religion the most seriously sometimes are also those who are suspicious of those not like them?”

If the subject were Islam, it is not likely the president would make an analogy between religion and intolerance, even though there are reasonable grounds to conclude that devoutness in the Muslim world is associated with terrorism. No, it is Christianity that worries him. He made this clear in 2008 when he connected Christianity to those who “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who are not like them.”

Some will defend the president saying there is evidence that Christians are more intolerant of others than the unaffiliated are. In 1991, I reviewed all the major surveys on tolerance, beginning with the Stouffer study in the 1950s, and found that most indeed came to this conclusion. But I also found that these studies never challenged verities held by secularists. To be specific, “tolerance” means “to put up with.” Given the secular bias of most social scientists, measurements of tolerance always seek to grade respondents on whether they are offended by attacks on traditional moral values. Ergo, secularists appear more tolerant—not because they are (if they were then Hollywood would be a bastion of tolerance)—but because it is easier for them “to put up with” attacks on these moral values.

Ironically, even though Obama sat through 20 years of listening to the intolerant sermons of Rev. Jeremiah—”God Damn America”—Wright, he is no more suspicious of this brand of Christianity than he is of Islam.

An article in today’s New York Times quotes Playboy executives declaring victory in the culture war. Bill Donohue questions who the victors are and what they won. To read his Newsmax article, click here.

The following exchange occurred yesterday:

Dear Mr. Donohue:

You might have been busy with your news release of October 1 and did not have a chance to keep up with Laura Holson’s coverage of the shooting in Oregon.  She began filing from Oregon last Friday.   So while our editors discussed your complaint when it was received, we waited to go over it with Ms. Holson until she had reached the point where she was not inundated with her coverage of that horrific event.

Certainly you have very strong views on this issue and have written extensively on it.  But after many discussions, a review of past Times coverage and other resources, I agree with Ms. Holson’s editors that “historians” is accurate, and therefore no correction is required.

At one point you sent us a list of books you considered to be “the authoritative books on Fr. Serra.”  Ms. Holson had already reviewed the writings of some of the historians you cited in that list.

If I thought having an extended conversation on this would help, I would be happy to.  But after re-reading your correspondence, I cannot think of anything we could do or say that would convince you that our coverage was  fair and complete — or that the reference to “historians” is accurate.

We respect your opinion and I hope you will respect our decision — even if you do not agree with it.  If nothing else, rest assured that your points have been thoroughly reviewed and a great deal of time has been put into making this decision.

Sincerely,
Greg Brock

Gregory E. Brock
Senior Editor for Standards
The New York Times

Dear Mr. Brock,

Thank you for taking my complaint seriously. I have just one question: Who are the “historians” who claim that Fr. Serra tortured Indians?

Sincerely
Bill Donohue