Bill Donohue comments on the September 10 cover story in Newsweek:

To say the Catholic Church confounds Newsweek is an understatement: they just don’t know what to make of it. The article begins by praising Pope Francis as a progressive, then goes on a lengthy rant against San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, only to finish with a mixed review of the Holy Father. In other words, the good pope is compared to the bad archbishop, but instead of hailing the pope at the end, it closes by noting its uncertainty.

The comparison fails. Cordileone’s criticisms of gay marriage and Bruce-Caitlyn-Jenner are actually quite mild when contrasted to what the pope has said. Pope Francis has called gay marriage the work of “the Devil.” He has also warned against “gender ideology,” and attempts to “cancel out sexual difference.” In fact, he holds, “Gender ideology is demonic!”

It is also false to claim that there is a difference between Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis on homosexuality. Both of them have expressed their allegiance to the Church’s teaching: the act of homosexuality is an “intrinsic moral evil.” Therefore, to rail against Cordileone for expecting Catholic teachers to uphold this teaching makes Newsweek look plainly stupid. It is just as dumb to say the Bible doesn’t condemn homosexuality.

The article says with glee that in 1968 Benedict gave primacy to conscience over papal authority. More homework would have disclosed that in 1991 he explicitly noted that to say “the judgment of conscience” is “always right” would “mean that there is no truth.” Indeed, he warned against “the identification of conscience with superficial consciousness,” which reduces “man to his subjectivity.”

This confused piece ends by commending the pope for being “a superb communicator” but is unsure who he really is. In point of fact, Francis and Cordileone have more in common than Newsweek is willing to acknowledge.

Contact the writer, Alexander Nazaryan: a.nazaryan@newsweek.com

Bill Donohue comments on Madonna’s latest mockery of the Catholic religion:

Madonna ages, but she never changes. In Montreal last night to kick off her latest tour, she launched into the obscene lyrics from her song “Holy Water,” ripped off her skirt to reveal a skimpy nun’s habit, and started to pole dance. She then used one of her dancers—also dressed as a nun—to ride like a surfboard. Then the dancers lined the stage to act out the Last Supper, with Madonna as the central focus.

Examples of Madonna’s anti-Catholic performances over the years abound, as a perusal of our annual reports amply documents. Now, at age 57, these seem to have become her last refuge as she struggles to avoid becoming an entertainment has-been. For her and her fans, apparently, Catholic-bashing is the one thing that never gets old.

Contact Madonna’s manager, Guy Oseary: Guy.oseary@maverick.com

Bill Donohue comments on who speaks for the Church:

 Anti-Catholic groups such as GLAAD are selling the false notion that there is a “stark contrast between the Roman Catholic hierarchy and the laity,” and that “These bishops and cardinals are often greatly out of step with what the vast majority of Catholics believe.” As the Catholic League-Polling Company survey recently disclosed, this is mostly bunk. But more important is the lie that the voice of the hierarchy is not the genuine voice of the Catholic Church.

Don’t take my word for it, listen to what Jesus said just before his Ascension: “Full authority has been given to me both in heaven and on earth; go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations. Baptize them in the name ‘of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.’ Teach them to carry out everything I have commanded you. And know that I am with you always, until the end of the world.” (Mt 28: 18-20)

St. Athanasius picked up on this by saying that “the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning was preached by the Apostles and preserved by the Fathers. On this the Church was founded; and if anyone departs from this, he neither is, nor any longer ought to be called, a Christian.”

The Catholic Catechism is also explicit: “The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.”

It makes sense, then, that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops would proclaim that “The pope and bishops are the authoritative teachers in the Church”; they constitute the Magisterium, or teaching body, of the Church.

So much for the myth of two churches. The laity are an important part of the Church, but they do not speak for the Church.

Bill Donohue comments on how anti-Catholics and dissident Catholics are seeking to exploit Pope Francis in his upcoming American visit:

There is no end to the anti-Catholic and dissident Catholic groups seeking to manipulate the media into thinking they are legitimate Catholic entities. Simply because an organization adopts Catholic nomenclature is no proof that it is a bona fide Catholic group; many hijack the term for political purposes. Legitimate Catholic organizations, such as the Catholic League, are listed in the Official Catholic Directory.

On June 25, 15 of these so-called Catholic organizations, along with a smattering of individuals and non-Catholic groups, petitioned Pope Francis to meet with their representatives when he comes to the U.S. None of them are listed in the Official Catholic Directory. Furthermore, all of them have a history of railing against the Catholic Church, including a group of pro-abortion nuns (National Coalition of American Nuns). All of these groups have appealed to the pope to buy into their radical LGBT agenda.

The letter was written by the leaders of DignityUSA and GLAAD; the former rejects the Church’s teachings on sexuality and showcases obscene anti-Catholic bigots at its events; the latter is a secular gay organization that supports anti-Catholic plays and movies.

To read how these 15 organizations are falsely marketing themselves as truly Catholic entities, click here. The evidence speaks for itself.

The upcoming U.S. visit by Pope Francis is bound to unleash the fury of anti-Catholic activists. Here is an example of what happened when his two predecessors visited America:

1995: Pope John Paul II’s visit to New York City, Newark, and Baltimore
The Lesbian and Gay Papal Visit Coalition and ACT UP led a “Stop the Pope” campaign that included demonstrations and advertisements with demeaning images of the pope. Feminist Gloria Steinem and actress Olympia Dukakis led more than 1,000 Catholic dissidents,  feminists and gay rights activists in a march protesting Church teachings on abortion, birth control, homosexuality, and other matters. Six people were arrested after unfurling a banner reading “Condoms Save Lives” at Saks Fifth Avenue, overlooking St. Patrick’s Cathedral.  The cover of the LGNY Newspaper, published by “Lesbian & Gay New York,” featured a cartoon depiction of Cardinal O’Connor and Pope John Paul II kissing, with headlines like:  “Revealed! REAL Reason for Papal Visit!”; “O’Connor & Pope’s Secret Gay Love!”; “Their Urgent Warning: ‘The Catholic League are False Prophets.'” Tom Fox, editor of the National Catholic Reporter, told U.S. News that because Pope John Paul grew up under Nazi and Communist regimes, “he fears the freedoms we have in the West.”

2008: Pope Benedict XVI’s visit to Washington, DC and New York City
The National Coalition of American Nuns, a pro-abortion group, declared that the pope was not welcome, while the Women’s Ordination Conference had women dress up like priests to say Mass. Dignity, a group which once appointed gay rapist Paul Shanley its chaplain, staged a protest of the pope’s visit. New Ways Ministry held a press conference to promote gay sex. Catholics for a Free Choice, a pro-abortion anti-Catholic front group, hawked condoms, urging that no one leave home without one. SNAP (Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests), a group of professional victims who with their lawyers have exploited the Church, called for the United Nations to investigate the Vatican. And Rainbow Sash, a gay group, promised to throw ashes at the pope instead of confetti.

Bill Donohue warns, “Look for some of these same ugly groups to show up when Pope Francis arrives. We’ll be sure to out them.”

Bill Donohue comments on an error in today’s Washington Post:

There is a big story in today’s Washington Post by Anthony Faiola on the alleged conservative backlash inside the Vatican against Pope Francis. It is well done, though it breaks no new ground. The article also lists seven of the pope’s most famous statements, one of which, the “Who am I to judge?” story, is misreported. Faiola is not unusual in this regard: almost every reporter manages to get this comment wrong.

“On a flight back from his visit to Brazil,” Faiola writes, “Francis struck a different note on homosexuality than his predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI, who had once described it as an ‘intrinsic moral evil.’ In contrast, Francis had this to say about homosexuals: ‘If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?'”

Faiola is twice wrong. Pope Francis’ famous quip was not about homosexuality, it was about homosexuals. This is not a small difference. Both Francis and Benedict agree that homosexual acts cannot be morally justified, though that does not mean that the status of being a homosexual is deserving of condemnation. It is not. But to conflate sodomy and sexual orientation is simply wrong.

Like others, Faiola excises the last word in the pope’s statement on gays: he leaves out the pronoun “him.” To be specific, the pope was asked about a particular priest—he is gay and presumed celibate—and that is why he ended his remark by saying, “who am I to judge him?” Again, this is not a small difference. By accurately quoting what the pope said, it is impossible not to conclude that he was talking about a person, not conduct.

Over the next few weeks, we will monitor stories on Pope Francis, providing a fact check, when necessary.

Contact Faiola: faiolaa@washpost.com

Bill Donohue comments on a letter to Pope Francis from Congressional Democrats:

Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), a rabidly pro-abortion Catholic, has sent a letter to Pope Francis — signed by 93 of her House Democratic colleagues — urging him to focus on certain topics when he addresses Congress Sept. 24. And they are not content to have him speak in general terms about concerns like economic justice or the environment. They want him to advance specific items on their agenda, like paid sick leave, a higher minimum wage, and climate change. Nowhere, of course, do they express openness to what he might say on marriage, family or the sanctity of life. Indeed, if he addresses any of these issues from the House rostrum, be prepared to hear these same voices caterwauling about separation of church and state.

Speaking of which, Americans United for Separation of Church and State has already warned cities hosting the papal visit to respect church-state separation. But don’t expect them to rebuke DeLauro and company. Although this is not the first time she has sought to involve religious leaders in her political causes — she once urged Cardinal Timothy Dolan to mobilize the U.S. Bishops behind her anti-poverty agenda — she receives a 100 percent rating from Americans United. Why? Because their criteria primarily oppose religious voices exerting influence on public policies. No problem, apparently, for government officials to use their offices to try to influence religion or religious leaders.

Interestingly, there has been no similar correspondence to the pope from Congressional Republicans — so often accused, by political opponents as well as groups like Americans United, of trying to use religion to their political advantage.

Of course, if Rep. DeLauro were to have an epiphany, and urge the pope to defend the unborn and traditional marriage, she too would be condemned by Americans United. It’s not about party, and it’s certainly not about separation of church and state. It’s about which issues are being promoted. If you’re on the right side, in the view of DeLauro and company and groups like Americans United, then religious “intrusion” into government — or government intrusion into religion — is just fine.

Bill Donohue announced that Rick Hinshaw has come on board as Director of Communications for the Catholic League, a position he held previously.

Rick comes to the Catholic League from The Long Island Catholic, the official publication of the Diocese of Rockville Centre, where he served as editor for the last eight-and-a-half years. Prior to that, he had served as Public Information Officer for Nassau County, NY District Attorney Denis Dillon; Director for Communications of the New York State Catholic Conference; Director of Communications for the Catholic League; and Director of the Office of Family Ministry for the Diocese of Rockville Centre. From 1989-96 he served The Long Island Catholic as a reporter and then news editor. For several years he also co-hosted “The Catholic Forum,” a weekly television show on the diocesan Telecare channel. Rick holds Bachelor’s and Master’s Degrees in Political Science from the C.W. Post College of Long Island University. He has taught Political Science at C.W. Post and Dowling Colleges, and is a member of the Society of Catholic Social Scientists.

“It’s very exciting to again be a part of the Catholic League’s critical work,” he said, “especially at a time when our beliefs and our religious liberty are under increasing attack, both here and around the world.”

“Rick Hinshaw knows the Catholic League and understands our mission,” said Donohue. “His experience, in the Church and in communications, can only strengthen our voice in defense of our faith and our religious freedom.”

Bill Donohue comments on the Pew Research Center survey of Catholics released yesterday:

In terms of methodological precision, the Pew Research Center has no rival. Its latest survey is no exception: it offers an in-depth picture of Catholics. But its decision to examine those who are no longer Catholic, or never were, is of questionable utility.

The title and subtitle of the report reflect its discontinuity. The title reads, “U.S. Catholics Open to Non-Traditional Families.” The subtitle, “45% of Americans Are Catholic or Connected to Catholicism” bears no relationship to the title. Moreover, it is not clear why this figure even matters. “Connected to Catholics”?

Most surveys contrast practicing and non-practicing Catholics, as judged by Mass attendance. This survey does this as well, but it also includes “Cultural Catholics,” namely, those who are no longer Catholic but continue to think of themselves as such (converts and non-believers). Probing self-identity is an interesting subject, but to what end? If a vegetarian turns carnivorous, yet persists in considering himself a vegetarian, would we include him in a survey of vegetarians? Pew’s typology also includes self-identified “Ex-Catholics.” Would ex-Muslims be included in a survey of Muslims? And as noted, the survey includes “Connected to Catholics.” We never learn why they are worth studying.

Not surprisingly, “Cultural Catholics” and “Ex-Catholics” are less likely to accept the Church’s teachings. But it is nice to know they like the pope.

One finding which never varies is the correlation between Mass attendance and fidelity to Church teachings: practicing Catholics are the most likely to accept the teachings of the Church; women, seniors, and those who are married are the most practicing. In this regard, “Most Catholics are very loyal to the church,” is one of its most salient findings.

There is much to mine in this report. Unfortunately, there is much that is of dubious significance.

Bill Donohue comments on the status of the so-called End of Life Option Act now being considered by the California legislature:

No one in public life would ever say it is morally licit to entice the burdensome—the mentally ill, the disabled, uninsured immigrants, and the like—to kill themselves, yet that is what many lawmakers in California are plotting to do. They can scream all they want about how pure their motives are, but the fact of the matter is that the impending assisted-suicide bill delivers exactly that outcome.

The bill passed the Assembly Health committee yesterday and now goes to the Finance committee. It is modeled after Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act, a law that has made suicide so respectable that Oregonians now kill themselves at a rate 41 percent higher than the national average. This figure does not count the 859 people who elected to kill themselves with a lethal injection, kindly provided to them by their doctor.

We know from evidence collected in Europe and the U.S. that the most vulnerable segments of society are overrepresented among the doctor-assisted dead; conversely, the affluent able-bodied are underrepresented. Why? Because the rich and powerful have access to the best health care, and are not presented with the kinds of “got-ya” type options that the dispossessed are afforded. This is particularly true in a state like California where millions receive government-subsidized health care. Moreover, we know from many studies that suicide requests are more often made by those suffering from depression and related maladies.

Even the politics of this bill are obscene. Because it previously stalled in committee when going through conventional channels, it is being jammed through now in a special session called to address Medicare financing. That is one reason why Gov. Jerry Brown opposes it.

Catholic League members in California are urged to contact their legislators. See the website ahardpill.org for information.