Below is the text of a letter Bill Donohue sent to Debi Gray, executive director of the Virginia Museum of Contemporary Art in Virginia Beach:

Dear Ms. Gray:

Opening next week at the Virginia Museum of Contemporary Art is an exhibition that features a painting by Mark Ryden, “Rosie’s Tea Party.” It depicts a young girl in her First Communion dress, wearing a crucifix around her neck, cutting a piece of ham with the words “Corpus Christi” (Body of Christ) inscribed on it. There is a bottle of wine on the table with a picture of Jesus in it; nearby, there is a rabbit pouring a teapot with blood coming out of it.

When one of the commissioners on the Virginia Beach Arts and Humanities Commission objected to this work, you defended it, saying, “Art is intended to be controversial.” Ryden defended his painting by saying, “I am really not poking fun at religion,” adding that “Someone ought to poke fun at those Christians, though.”

I have a suggestion. Why not substitute a young Muslim girl in a hijab, wearing a machete around her neck, cutting a piece of ham with the words, “Allahu Akbar” inscribed on it. In place of Jesus in the wine bottle, display a picture of Muhammad. And yes, please keep the blood.

When Muslims complain, tell them that “Art is intended to be controversial,” and “Someone ought to poke fun at those Muslims anyway.”

Please be sure to let me know the outcome.

Contact: debi@virginiamoca.org

Bill Donohue comments on the decision by the Archdiocese of Louisville to deny a gay couple the right to have a headstone in St. Michael’s Cemetery that commemorates their “marriage”:

At the top of the headstone is the name of the two homosexuals, Bourke and De Leon, and in between is an inscription of wedding rings. Below is an image of the Supreme Court. At the bottom is their first name and initial—one on each side—with their date of birth below; in the middle is a cross.

The Archdiocese of Louisville said it would accept the headstone absent the wedding rings and the courthouse, saying they conflict with Catholic teachings: “Inscriptions on grave markers are permitted so long as they do not conflict with any teachings of the Church. Your proposed markings are not in keeping with this requirement.”

Bourke and De Leon were among the plaintiffs in the U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage. They will hold a press conference today to protest the decision of the Archdiocese.

These men are not interested in tolerance—they want to impose their secular views on the Catholic Church. Hopefully, this contrived exercise in victimhood will open the eyes of those Americans who fail to distinguish between ordinary gays and militant gay activists. It is the latter, along with their heterosexual allies, who are seeking to sexually engineer our society—not even bathrooms and showers are off-limits—practicing intolerance in the name of “rights.”

The First Amendment ensures the free exercise of religion, and if that means anything, it means the right of religious institutions to determine their own strictures. That would include the right to deny those who seek to politicize Catholic graveyards.

Bill Donohue comments on remarks made by Pope Francis in an interview with the French media:

“Pope Rules Out Early Resignation for Cardinal in Paedophilia Storm”
“Pope Rules out Early Resignation for French Cardinal”
“Pope Shows Support for Cardinal Accused of Covering Up Abuse”
“Pope Backing Cardinal Accused of Covering Up ‘Abuse'”

These are some of today’s headlines regarding Pope Francis’ comments on the status of Cardinal Philippe Barbarin, Archbishop of Lyon. The headlines smack of Catholic baiting: the cardinal has not been found guilty of anything, and there never was a cover-up. Therefore, it was entirely defensible of the pope to say, “Based on the information that I have, I believe that Cardinal Barbarin in Lyon took the necessary measures and that he has matters under control.” Here’s what happened.

Father Bernard Preynat molested several boys between 1986 and 1991, and was suspended in 1991 for doing so. Cardinal Barbarin did not become Archbishop of Lyon until 2002 and was first made aware of Preynat’s offenses in 2007-2008. He immediately confronted the priest, and was satisfied that the priest’s offenses ended when he was suspended.

In 2014, the archbishop met with a man who claimed that Preynat abused him: Barbarin instructed him to put his story in writing and send a copy to the Vatican. He also commenced an investigation. In 2015, Barbarin removed Preynat from ministry.

Cardinal Barbarin admits that he should have exercised better judgment, but to say he was involved in a cover-up is absurd.

We live in a time when there is a war on the rights of accused priests; they are also assumed guilty until proven innocent. Pope Francis is to be commended for standing by Cardinal Barbarin. As he told the press, “We now need to await the outcome of the civil judicial proceedings.” That’s the way the justice system is supposed to work, priests included.

Bill Donohue makes an appeal to TV advertisers:

Thousands of television advertisers descended on New York City today; they are assessing the crop of shows for the next TV season. The time is ripe for us to restate our objections to the ABC show, “The Real O’Neals.” If these advertising executives are at all objective, they will want to drop this show from their list of TV packages, starting in the fall.

Our central objection to this show is the decision to base the script on the life of an obscene anti-Catholic bigot, Dan Savage; he is also an executive producer. Disney, which owns ABC, would never allow its “Snow White” image to be dirtied by picking up a show based on the life of a gay basher, but it has no problem carrying a show based on the life of a Catholic basher.

Disney’s stock is down 5 percent in the second quarter. This is not an anomaly: the stock seriously underperformed last year. It deserves to be down much more—the public needs to understand how much Disney officials have allowed their own reputations to plummet.

Magna Global is a giant in the ad-buying world; its headquarters are in New York, and it has offices in many parts of the world. We are asking its officers to inform the TV advertisers who have come to New York about Savage’s bigotry. To do so would call into question future ad placements on “The Real O’Neals.”

If Magna Global, or anyone else, thinks we are overreacting to Savage’s comments, all they need to do is read what he has said about Catholics and the Catholic Church: Click here.

We have never dealt with Magna Global. All we are asking is that our side be given a fair hearing.

Contact Dan Friedman, global corporate communications at Magna Global: daniel.friedman@mbww.com

Bill Donohue comments on the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to order the lower courts to reconsider the constitutionality of the Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate:

Given the 4-4 split in the high court, this ruling is not altogether a bad decision. Ideally, the justices would have affirmed the religious liberty interests that are central to this lawsuit, Zubik v. Burwell. But it is auspicious nonetheless because it suggests that a less restrictive accommodation will be crafted, thus affording greater religious liberty protections than might otherwise be the case.

At the end of March, the justices asked both sides to submit new legal briefs that would (a) provide for the healthcare services that the Obama administration wants to be made available to Catholic non-profit employees, and (b) provide protection for the religious liberty interests of these entities. Today’s ruling is entirely in keeping with this stance: a compromise beyond what has thus far been brooked must be reached.

Many alternatives will be forthcoming, but all should allow Catholic non-profits to remain one step removed from sanctioning morally offensive healthcare procedures. It is also important to keep in mind that it is not just contraceptives that are being mandated, it is abortion-inducing drugs; they were included so it would pave the way for the federal government to order Catholic hospitals to perform abortions.

Then there is the larger issue: The federal government has no legal or moral right to decide that a Catholic institution is not legitimately Catholic if it employs and/or services a large number of non-Catholics. If this issue isn’t resolved, then it will only postpone the day of reckoning.

Bill Donohue comments on an editorial in yesterday’s Washington Post:

The Washington Post is on a tear, ripping the Catholic Church for defending itself against professional victims’ advocates and their lawyers. On April 20, it ran an editorial blasting the Vatican for not moving fast enough to commence a tribunal that would investigate bishops who allegedly failed to discipline an offending priest. Yesterday, it ripped dioceses that fight bills that would lift the statute of limitations on the sexual abuse of minors. In doing so, it showed how utterly dishonest it is.

It is dishonest to pretend that an institution that has been ravaged with claims by rogue lawyers has no right to defend itself. For example, church-suing lawyer Jeffrey Anderson has boasted how he is “suing the s*** out of them [the Catholic Church] everywhere.”

It is dishonest to pretend that the Catholic Church is the only institution opposing the elimination of a fundamental civil liberty, namely the statute of limitations. Many religious organizations have done the same, and when public schools are included in bills to revise this statute, the teachers’ unions lead the charge to defeat them.

It is dishonest to pretend that these bills are designed to protect minors—that is an out-and-out lie. If they were they would always apply to the public sector, but they rarely do.

It is dishonest to pretend that these bills are needed to protect Catholic students today: this problem has slowed immensely in Catholic quarters, even as it has increased dramatically in other communities.

It is dishonest to pretend that these bills would not encourage more false accusations against Catholic employees—data released last week show that bogus claims are rising precipitously. Yet the Washington Post says nothing about this.

Contact Fred Hiatt, editorial page editor: fred.hiatt@washpost.com

Bill Donohue comments on the renewal of “The Real O’Neals”:

For weeks, we have been hearing how “The Real O’Neals” was “on the bubble,” meaning that no decision had been made to renew or cancel the show. Now ABC has made it official—the show has been renewed for the new season.

The “O’Neals” consistently performed poorly against its competitors on CBS (“NCIS”) and NBC (“The Voice”), though they are one-hour shows; it also consistently lost hundreds of thousands of viewers following the ABC half-hour show that preceded it, “Fresh Off the Boat.” But it drew a modest-size audience nonetheless.

The Catholic League’s objections to the show center less on its scripts—they have uniformly appealed to those with a juvenile sense of humor—than with the decision to base the show on the life of a morally destitute, and relentlessly anti-Catholic, man, Dan Savage (he is also an executive producer). It just goes to show, once again, what Hollywood thinks of practicing Catholics.

It must be noted, however, that our campaign has not been without effect: the scripts were rarely of a blatantly anti-Catholic nature, and Disney/ABC silenced Dan Savage. That they dumbed-down the content—fearful of provoking a backlash—is indisputable. It is equally clear that Savage was ordered not to engage me; we previously clashed on many occasions.

Whether the scripts next season will stoke anti-Catholic sentiment, or whether they will remove the gag order on Savage, remains to be seen. If they do, we will gin up our efforts by attacking the Disney brand.

We are not walking away from this fight: Disney/ABC has shown its contempt for Catholics, and they will not escape with impunity.

Contact Disney/ABC chief: ben.sherwood@abc.com

Bill Donohue comments on the Catholic League’s campaign against the ABC show, “The Real O’Neals,” and why he is asking Yum! Brands, Inc., owner of KFC (Kentucky Fried Chicken) to drop its sponsorship:

Please contact Virginia Ferguson, Director of Public Relations for Yum! Brands, Inc. and tell her how offended Catholics are by a show that is based on the life of an obscene anti-Catholic bigot, Dan Savage (who is also an executive producer), and why we are requesting that Yum! Brands Inc. stop advertising KFC on the show.

Contact: Virginia.Ferguson@yum.com

Bill Donohue comments on the Catholic League’s campaign against the ABC show, “The Real O’Neals,” and why he is asking Discover credit card to drop its sponsorship:

Please contact Discover’s media relations department and tell them how offended Catholics are by a show that is based on the life of an obscene anti-Catholic bigot, Dan Savage (who is also an executive producer), and why we are requesting that Discover stop advertising on the show.

Contact: mediarelations@discover.com

Bill Donohue comments on a bill to intimidate religious colleges and universities:

The assault on religious liberty, in the name of LGBT rights, is at the heart of a bill introduced by Rep. Katherine Clark of Massachusetts. She wants to force all religious institutions of higher education to post on their website, and at a prominent place on their campus, statements granting them an exemption from Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.

Initially, Title IX was meant to stop discrimination against women, but now it is a weapon in the LGBT arsenal to sexually engineer American society. Their goal is to force all institutions into ratifying their agenda.

Rep. Clark’s bill does not seek to repeal the many secular exemptions to Title IX: it says nothing about the exemptions afforded the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, fraternities and sororities, military academies, and the like. Her cherry picking amounts to religious profiling and religious discrimination; it also creates a chilling effect on free speech.

Exemptions to federal laws are commonplace—Native Americans being Exhibit A. ObamaCare exempted a whole slew of demographic groups and organizations, ranging from members of Indian tribes to certain religious sects. Unions are exempt from many labor laws, and so on. Now if someone were to toy with these exemptions, he would be called out for it. This is why we are calling out Rep. Clark.

Her bias is palpable. In defending her assault on religious liberty, she commends Obama’s Department of Education for “answering our call to action to publicly disclose the names of schools quietly seeking the right to discriminate against LGBT students.” Translated: a man who “feels” he is a woman should be allowed to shower with the gals, and if he is barred from doing so at Catholic colleges because of the exemption, the schools should pay a price for exercising their religious liberties.

Contact Rep. Clark’s communications director, Justin Unga: justin.unga@mail.house.gov