Bill Donohue comments on the pope’s reaction to those who seek to exploit the issue of priestly sexual abuse:

Last May, Pope Francis spoke about allegations that the bishop of Osorno, Chile, Juan Barros, was complicit in a crime of priestly sexual abuse. The bishop, who was installed in March, has come under fire for covering up the abuses of Father Fernando Karadima. The priest was found guilty by the Vatican in 2011; the following year a Chilean court dismissed claims against him because the statute of limitations had expired.

It should be noted that the bishop’s principal accuser, Juan Carlos Cruz, a gay man, was 15 when the alleged abuse occurred and it did not end until he was 23! Moreover, we know that a Vatican inquiry was sufficient for Pope Francis to take the bishop’s side. “The Osorno community is suffering because it’s dumb,” he said. He explained that it “has let its head be filled with what politicians say, judging a bishop without any proof.” Then the pope got specific: “Don’t be led by the nose by the leftists who orchestrated all of this.”

Pope Francis could have admonished the crowd not to be manipulated by critics of the Church, or by those with an agenda. Instead, he identified “leftists.” Much the same could be said about those who have sought to exploit the homosexual scandal here at home.

Professional victims’ groups such as the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP), along with their steeple-chasing lawyer/donors—Jeffrey Anderson is the worst of many—are leftists who hate the Catholic Church. Ditto for bishopaccountability.org, a partisan website that is anything but fair. Left-wing journalists at the National Catholic Reporter, which rejects the Church’s teachings on sexuality, have also exploited this issue. Much the same could be said about leftists in the secular media, both reporters and pundits.

Too many bishops and priests have been falsely accused by those with a left-wing agenda to dismiss the pope’s concerns. We commend him for his courage.

Bill Donohue comments on the professionalism of the New York Times:

On September 30, the New York Times ran a front-page story that smeared St. Junipero Serra. Repeated attempts to have the paper correct the record have failed.

On the day that Laura M. Holson’s news story appeared, “Sainthood of Serra Reopens Wounds of Colonialism in California,” I sent her the following email:

You said that “Historians agree” that Fr. Serra had Indians “tortured to death.” I have done research on Serra and written about him, yet I know of no historian who makes such a claim. Please name them. I can name many who never made such a claim. [Click here to read them.]

The following day I contacted the “Corrections” section of the paper, as well as the public editor, sending them the above email. I also said, “Ms. Holson has not responded. Assuming she cannot name historians who have made such a claim, I am requesting that this merit inclusion in the ‘Corrections’ section of the Times.”

One week went by after my email to these two parties, and still no response. Yesterday, I wrote them again, sending the previous emails: “Please let me know if I can expect a correction to Ms. Holson’s story. If her account is accurate, she should be able to name the historians who say that Fr. Serra tortured Indians. This story is particularly important because Pope Francis just canonized Fr. Serra when he was in DC. Thank you.”

Another day has passed, and still no reply. This is yellow journalism at its worst. When I submit paid ads to the Times, I am often asked to identify my sources. Yet it accepts hit jobs like Holson’s. The fact is there is no list of historians who claim Fr. Serra tortured Indians, and the Times knows it. We are sending this news release to a wide audience.

Contact Margaret Sullivan, the public editor: public@nytimes.com

Bill Donohue comments on the ACLU’s lawsuit against Trinity Health, a Catholic healthcare group:

The ACLU’s passion for abortion is matched only by its hatred of Catholicism. When these two enemies—unborn children and the Catholic Church—come together, the ACLU kicks into high gear. This explains its recent lawsuit against Trinity Health: its hospitals refuse to perform abortions. Two years ago, the ACLU filed suit against the bishops’ conference in a similar case; it was dismissed in June.

What accounts for the ACLU’s obstinacy? It’s due to two things: ideology and money. The ideological reasons extend back to its founding: in 1920, it listed all the rights mentioned in the First Amendment save for religious freedom. This was no accident. Roger Baldwin, the founder, was an atheist who grew up in an anti-Catholic home (he told me this in June 1978 when I interviewed him in his home in New York City). Promoting abortion is not only a sincere conviction, it pays handsomely. Just read its hysterical fundraising letters.

Moreover, of the last 20 statements made about the Catholic Church on the ACLU’s website, 16 deal with healthcare issues; the other four address cases involving gays. These days it leaves most of the fights over religious expression to atheist groups and their ilk. By contrast, it concentrates on the big prize—forcing Catholic hospitals to kill kids.

The ACLU is part of MergerWatch, a coalition of organizations dedicated to winning the big prize. It was co-founded by Frances Kissling, formerly of Catholics for Choice, a dummy group funded by the Ford Foundation and other elites; these same foundations grease MergerWatch. Interestingly, MergerWatch is located in the same building that houses Commonweal, the dissident Catholic magazine. Both are clients of the Interchurch Center: on its website it boasts that it is “affiliated primarily with its tenant agencies, many with which it co-sponsors events and programs.”

Contact: media@aclu.org

Bill Donohue comments on the homily given by Pope Francis at yesterday’s Mass for the opening of the Synod of Bishops:

Over the weekend there was much chatter over a host of contentious issues that will be taken up by the Synod. But none of this matters a great deal when contrasted with what the pope said in his homily to the bishops. He did not mince words on the subject of marriage. Here is an excerpt:

“He [God] made men and women for happiness, to share their journey with someone who complements them, to live the wondrous experience of love: to love and to be loved, and to see their love bear fruit in children, as the Psalm proclaimed today says.” The emphasis on the complementarity of men and women is a clear statement reaffirming marriage as a union between the two sexes; the comment on procreation underscores this point.

“This is God’s dream for his beloved creation: to see it fulfilled in the loving union between a man and a woman, rejoicing in their shared journey, fruitful in their mutual gift of self.” Again, the pope’s clarity on this subject leaves no wiggle room for misinterpretation: he is not about to sanction gay marriage.

There are many issues to be discussed over the next three weeks. Ultimately, Pope Francis has the last say. It would be refreshing if those on all sides of these matters were to allow the meetings to unfold without bickering and second guessing. The Synod is not a Las Vegas event open to bettors, and should not be treated as such.

Bill Donohue comments on media reaction to the Oregon killings:

Here is what Chris Harper-Mercer said to his victims just before he killed them: “Are you Christian?” After they stood up he said, “Good, because you’re Christian, you are going to see God in just about one second.” He then shot them. Another eyewitness account said that after he asked if they were Christian, “then they were shot in the head. If they said no, or didn’t answer, they were shot in the legs.”

The following media outlets were among those that reported on this story but never mentioned that Christians were singled out:

• ABC World News Tonight
• CBS Evening News
• NBC Nightly News
• PBS News Hour
• New York Times
• USA Today
• Slate
• Salon
• Gawker
• Daily Beast
• Yahoo
• Huffington Post
• Associated Press [This accounts for why so many papers across the nation made no mention of Christians.]

If African Americans or Muslims had been singled out, President Obama would have gone ballistic, Al Sharpton would be calling for street rallies, and CAIR would be asking for congressional investigations. But because Christians are being cherry picked for murder, there is no call to arms. Indeed, many major media outlets aren’t even telling the truth. It’s obvious—”Christian Lives Don’t Matter”—either here or abroad.

Bill Donohue comments on a front-page article that appeared in yesterday’s New York Times and his request for a correction:

Yesterday morning I emailed the following letter to New York Times reporter Laura M. Holson about her article, “Sainthood of Serra Reopens Wounds of Colonialism in California”:

You said that “Historians agree” that Fr. Serra had Indians “tortured to death.” I have done research on Serra and written about him, yet I know of no historian who makes such a claim. Please name them. I can name many who never made such a claim.

Holson never responded. Today I asked for an entry in the “Corrections” section of the newspaper, and I also contacted the public editor. This is a serious issue: when a reporter blithely says that “Historians agree,” readers take it that there is at least a consensus among historians about the subject. But such is not the case on this issue. The only persons given to such an accusation are radical activists, not professional scholars.

To read a list of the most authoritative books on Fr. Serra, click here.

Not one of them accuse this saintly priest of torturing Indians. Holson quotes Steven Hackel in her article, and though he is somewhat critical of Fr. Serra, he never makes such a claim. The one person who says torture took place, Elias Castillo, never indicts Fr. Serra. None of the other books come even close to accusing Fr. Serra of torture. Quite simply, it is a lie.