Bill Donohue comments on lies told by the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) about the New York Archdiocese compensation program for victims of sexual abuse:

When it comes to clergy sexual abuse, the New York Archdiocese has one of the best records in the nation: it has not only handled the relatively few cases brought before it with diligence, it instituted a program to compensate victims. But to some, it is never enough. Worse is when critics lie about the facts.

SNAP is a disgraced outfit whose ethically challenged leaders recently did themselves in. Now someone whom we have never heard of has surfaced demanding that the New York archdiocese publish the names of six miscreant priests, the implication being that there is a cover-up.

This is a non-starter: the names of the offending priests have already been published by the archdiocese. It is scurrilous to imply otherwise.

The only real story here is how far some will go to try to discredit the Catholic Church. If SNAP officials had half the integrity that the leaders of the New York Archdiocese have, and have had, they wouldn’t be hanging an “Out of Business” sign in their St. Louis office.

Bill Donohue comments on a Netflix documentary series, “The Keepers,” that will premiere on May 19:

Netflix is about to air a series that imputes the integrity of the Archdiocese of Baltimore for its handling of a miscreant priest from the 1960s. It relies heavily on conjecture and voodoo psychology. It must: it lacks the evidence to make its case. But it will surely feed the appetite of those ready to believe the worst about the Church.

The series focuses on the unresolved murder of Sister Cathy Cesnik. It invites the audience to consider whether she was killed to cover-up sexual abuse at the high school where she worked, Archbishop Keough in Baltimore.

Was the Archdiocese of Baltimore involved in the cover-up? The film dances around the issue, but the implication is clear. Importantly, there is no evidence to support its thesis, but who cares? The goal is to indict by innuendo.

No one disputes that Father Joseph Maskell sexually molested students at the high school in the 1960s. The question is whether he had anything to do with the murder of the nun. No one knows.

The docu-series relies heavily on the testimony of one woman. She says she was sexually abused by Father Maskell in the late 1960s. She also alleges that he passed her around to cops, businessmen, and local officials, all of whom abused her. She says she told this to Sister Cathy shortly before she disappeared. She also claims that Father Maskell took her to see the nun’s body, warning her about her fate should she squeal.

Here are some inconvenient facts that the series fails to acknowledge.

• The alleged victim never said a word to the officials in the Baltimore archdiocese after she was allegedly molested and after the priest allegedly threatened her. She never called the cops, either. Indeed, she never came forward until 1992.
• Sister Cathy’s body was found by two hunters at a Baltimore dump on January 3, 1970, almost two months after her last sighting. The Baltimore County Police began its investigation at this time.
• The case remained open and was extremely active through 1977. The police never got a single phone call from witnesses or victims alleging abuse from anyone associated with the Catholic Church.
• Neither the archdiocese nor the cops were made aware of Father Maskell’s abusive behavior until 1992. He was immediately removed from ministry for evaluation and treatment.
• The archdiocese reported the allegation to the civil authorities. That is when Father Maskell was investigated by the police.
• In 1994, after two other students subsequently make accusations against the priest, the archdiocese called the cops. Father Maskell was removed from public ministry.
• Detectives are asked to evaluate the charge that Father Maskell took the initial complainant to see Sister Cathy’s body, threatening her. They find inconsistencies in her story.
• After a lengthy police interview, Father Maskell is not considered a suspect and is let go. He dies in 2001.

This is obviously a sad story. But there is no evidence that the Archdiocese of Baltimore did anything wrong. Indeed, it did everything right.

Why did the accusing woman who is at the center of this story wait until the 1990s to report what allegedly happened in the 1960s? “Repressed memory,” we are told.

• The American Psychology Association studied this issue and concluded that “Most people who were sexually abused as children remember all or part of what happened to them.”
• The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the Bible of the American Psychiatric Association, does not recognize the scientific validity of “repressed memories.”
• “Researchers at Harvard Medical School concluded that “repressed memory” is a cultural creation having no basis in science.
• In 2012, clinical psychologists and authors from the University of Nevada, Reno, studied the literature on this subject and concluded that “there is a large amount of scientific evidence that clearly shows that repressed memories simply do not exist. Furthermore research studies involving traumatic events that have been verified indicate that people do not forget their trauma. Indeed, traumatic events are actually quite memorable.”

So what would the top brass at Netflix do if they learned of a similar accusation made by a former employee against one of its officials? Would they call the cops? Hopefully, they would. We don’t know. Would they immediately remove the accused from his job—the way the archdiocese did—or would they allow him to continue until the case was resolved? How would they react if I decided to do a movie about them?

Had those behind this Netflix documentary spent more time discussing the script with the Archdiocese of Baltimore before moving forward, they may have dropped it altogether. But they didn’t—they sought very little input. That is why “The Keepers” is so scurrilous: it indicts without evidence.

Bill Donohue comments on Obama’s opposition to Pope Francis on key moral issues:

The media spin on how widely Pope Francis disagrees with President Trump is not only exaggerated, it offers no context: the pope had less in common with President Obama, though news reports neglect to say so.

Abortion

No public policy issue is more important for Catholics than abortion: the Catholic Church teaches that it is “intrinsically evil,” thus putting it in a select category of sins.

On September 1, 2015, Pope Francis wrote that “Since the first century, the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.” Prior to becoming pope, Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio said, “The right to life is the first human right. Abortion is killing someone that cannot defend him or herself.”

When President Obama was in the Illinois state senate, he led the fight to legalize selective infanticide. He fought against a law that would have required doctors to attend to infants born alive after a botched abortion.

In 2007, presidential candidate Obama told Planned Parenthood that “the first thing I’d do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.” It would have arguably forced Catholic hospitals to perform abortions, cutting off federal funds if they refused.

On September 16, 2015, President Obama proved his passion for selective infanticide when he pledged to veto a federal bill that would protect the life of a baby born alive as a result of a botched abortion.

Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Pope Francis said on November 15, 2014 that “We are living in a time of experimentation with life. But a bad experiment.” He condemned embryonic stem cell research, saying it uses “human beings as guinea pigs to presumably save others. This is playing with life.”

On May 9, 2009, President Obama said that his executive order “will lift the ban on federal funding for promising embryonic stem cell research. We will also vigorously support scientists who pursue this research.”

Euthanasia

On May 30, 2015, Pope Francis was quoted saying that “Terrorism, war, violence, but also euthanasia are attacks against life.”

When he was a U.S. senator, Obama supported government intervention in the case of Terri Schiavo; he voted to provide the physically disabled woman with nutrition. But in 2008, he said this was the senatorial vote he most regretted.

Gay Marriage 

In 2010, when he was an Argentinian bishop, Pope Francis said gay marriage was the work of the devil. He said gay marriage is “a clear rejection of the law of God,” and “a move of the Father of Lies.”

In 2015, President Obama hailed the Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage as “a victory for America.”

Gender Ideology

“Gender ideology is demonic!” That is what Pope Francis told Austrian Bishop Andreas Laun in 2014.

In 2016, President Obama tried to use the non-discrimination provisions of Title IX of the 1972 Education Amendments to force religious organizations to perform operations whereby a man acquires the body parts of a female or vice versa.

Religious Liberty

When at the White House in 2015, Pope Francis made a veiled reference to Obama’s HHS mandate: it seeks to force Catholic non-profit entities to pay for abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception in their healthcare plans. The pope cheerfully noted that Americans are “concerned that efforts to build a just and wisely ordered society respect their deepest concerns and their right to religious liberty.

On August 8, 2012, President Obama said that objections to his HHS mandate, and pleas for religious exemptions, were coming from “the far right.”

Conclusion 

Not only did Pope Francis have less in common with President Obama than he does with President Trump, there are huge qualitative differences.

How to protect the environment, what to do about refugees, and how to handle illegal immigration are important issues, but when compared to specific Catholic teachings on life and death issues, as well as such critical issues as marriage and the family—to say nothing about our constitutional right to freedom of religion—it is clear that Pope Francis shares more common ground with President Trump than he did with President Obama. But don’t look to the media to make this point.

Bill Donohue comments on the upcoming meeting between Pope Francis and President Trump:

“The Two Have Clashed in the Past.” That is how Time is characterizing next week’s meeting between Pope Francis and President Trump. The New Yorker is more dramatic, saying, “Pope Francis is the Anti-Trump.” Huffington Post is typically irresponsible: “Trump and Pope Francis Will Finally Meet After a Year of Ideological Sparring.”

The spin masters in the mainstream media, almost all of whom like the pope and hate the president, are in high gear promoting the message that there is a real divide between the two men.

There is no denying that on climate change, refugees, and immigration, there are differences between Pope Francis and President Trump.

Regarding climate change, it is important to note that there is no Catholic teaching on this subject. To be sure, the Church is committed to protecting the environment, but, as with many other issues, there is no defined position on how best to achieve it.

So if the pope thinks global warming is real, and is caused mostly by human activity, and the president is skeptical, believing that environmental regulations have become too rigid, this is simply a matter of opinion.

The pope and the president have each expressed their outrage at Christian persecution, particularly in the Middle East. The pope calls on all nations to resettle refugees; the president believes that those nations in the area which are receptive to resettling them are best suited to do so. Both positions are eminently defensible.

Their different approaches to immigration have been subjected to much media hype. In February 2016, news stories abounded claiming that Pope Francis said, “Trump is Not Christian.” This was a classic example of fake news. Here is what happened.

A reporter from Reuters told the pope aboard the papal plane that Trump “wants to deport 11 million illegal immigrants, thus separating families.” This was not true. On August 16, 2015, when Chuck Todd explicitly asked Trump about this on “Meet the Press,” the Republican candidate for president said, “Chuck—no, no. No, we’re going to keep the families together. We have to keep the families together.”

After misrepresenting what Trump said, the reporter asked the pope “if an American Catholic can vote for someone like this.” The pope demurred, but that is not the real issue. Whatever happened to separation of church and state? More important, was it now acceptable for Catholics to vote the way the pope tells them to?

The pope handled himself well, and when asked about Trump’s bid to build a wall, the Holy Father offered a more nuanced answer than the media reported. “A person who thinks only about building walls…is not Christian.” (My italic.) He added that “I say only that this man is not Christian if he has said things like that…and in this I give the benefit of the doubt.” (My emphasis.)

Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi stressed that the pope’s remark about “not a Christian” was based largely on “what he was told.”

Trump’s initial reaction to what the pope said was based on false media reports, which explains why he said it was “disgraceful” for a religious leader to question someone’s faith.

After learning what the pope actually said, Trump commented, “I think it was probably a little bit nicer statement than was reported by you folks in the media because after I read it [it] was a little bit softer.” He then turned up the heat. “I would say that I think he [the pope] was very much misinterpreted, and I also think he was given false information.”

Predictably, the media are downplaying those issues where the pope and the president agree, namely on abortion and marriage. Unlike climate change, these issues are the subject of major Catholic teachings; they are not a matter of opinion. Both men are resolutely pro-life, committed to strengthening the rights of the unborn. And both believe that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, not two people of the same sex.

They also find common ground in their support for religious liberty. There is a great confluence of thought between the pope and the president on the right of churches and affiliated entities to conduct their business without the government meddling in their affairs.

It must also be said that if the media are going to compare various positions of Pope Francis and President Trump, fairness dictates that it examine how the pope matched up with Trump’s predecessor. That will be the focus on my next article.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue responds to an AP story, “Demonization of Soros Recalls Old anti-Semitic Conspiracies,” written by Vanessa Gera:

The AP news story is a wholly indefensible whitewash of George Soros, one that accuses his critics of anti-Semitism. Yet not a single anti-Semitic quote that his critics have made is cited.

AP would have us believe that Soros has “advanced human rights,” along with many other noble goals. Not for Catholics. In fact, Soros has funded more anti-Catholic groups than any person in American history. That he is a self-hating Jew who has worked tirelessly against Israel is also indisputable.

After quoting a Catholic woman broadcaster from Poland accusing Soros of using his foundations to “finance anti-Christian and anti-national activities,” the story says, “Sociologists see such rhetoric…as a modern manifestation of old anti-Semitic conspiracies.”

A Polish sociologist, who relies totally on conjecture, is then mentioned. He must resort to conjecture: He offers no evidence that anti-Semitism is driving Soros’ critics. I am a sociologist, too, and I see the broadcaster’s remark as spot-on.

I will now do what AP cannot do: I will offer proof of my accusations against Soros. I could say a whole lot more, but the following will do.

The AP story focuses mostly on Soros’ campaigns in Central and Eastern Europe, detailing his work amidst charges that he is interfering in the internal affairs of these nations. Guilty as charged—injecting himself into the sovereign affairs of other nations is what Soros does.

His many foundations, in particular his Open Society Foundations, fund anti-Catholic projects in Ireland, as well as in many African, Asian, and Latin American nations. How so? By promoting abortion and working to sideline the Catholic Church.

“For George Soros, Ireland Abortion Fight May be First Step Against Catholic countries.” That was the title of an article last year by Kevin Jones posted on the website of Catholic News Agency. Soros’ foundations funded Abortion Rights Campaign, Amnesty International Ireland, and the Irish Planning Association, all aimed at repealing Ireland’s anti-abortion law. Jones also detailed similar efforts in Mexico, Zambia, Nigeria, and Tanzania.

The Soros document that Jones cited shows how Soros’ Open Society Foundations boasted that if they won in Ireland, “a win there could impact other strongly Catholic countries in Europe, such as Poland, and provide much needed proof that change is possible, even in highly conservative places.”

In 2005, the Soros-funded PAC arm of MoveOn.org posted a smiling picture of Pope Benedict XVI holding a gavel outside the U.S. Supreme Court. Above the picture it said, “God Already has a Job…He does not need one on the Supreme Court. Protect the Supreme Court Rules.”

In 2016, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, lavishly funded by Soros, worked against the Catholic Church’s efforts to promote religious liberty; the Church was campaigning against the HHS abortion-inducing mandate being foisted on it by the Obama administration

In 2012, Faith in Public Life, a Soros-funded entity, provided talking points to its ideological kin by instructing them on how to handle “the war on the Catholic Church.” The following year, Faithful America, which is funded by Faith in Public Life, condemned two cardinals, and the Catholic University of America, for upholding Catholic values.

Catholics for Choice is a pro-abortion, anti-Catholic letterhead that has no members, but is nicely greased by Soros. Its sole purpose is to sell the invidious notion that being pro-abortion is an acceptable Catholic position. Soros has also funded Catholics United, a bogus Catholic group that triggered a campaign against me in 2008. It tried to get me kicked off CNN and it abetted a failed IRS probe against me.

Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, which had its IRS tax-exempt status pulled in 2013, is a real Soros gem. It was founded by John Podesta for the purpose of planting “the seeds of the revolution” in the Catholic Church. We know this because of the infamous Wikileaks documents.

Imagine a Catholic foundation that funded a “revolution” in the Jewish community by setting up dummy Jewish organizations. Would AP do a story painting the primary donor as a hero?

Jews have been harshly critical of Soros as well. In 2003, the ADL accused Soros of blaming anti-Semitism in Israel on the Israeli government. In 2006, an article in the Jerusalem Post accused Soros of weakening support for Israel in the Democratic Party, seeking “to undermine Israel’s positions in the U.S. in general.”

In 2007, the Jewish Forward said that “The editor of the New Republic, Martin Peretz, renewed an attack on Soros that he began a month ago when he called the Hungarian-born Holocaust survivor a cog in the Hitlerite wheel.” In 2016, the Jerusalem Post noted that some hacked emails show that the stated goal of Soros’ Open Society Foundations was “challenging Israel’s racist and anti-democratic policies.”

This news story by AP is an affront to the sensibilities of those Catholics and Jews who know better. George Soros is no champion of human rights. He is a manipulative atheist billionaire deserving of our condemnation, not commendation. Shame on AP for trying to make him a victim—he is a master victimizer.

Contact Vanessa Gera: vgera@ap.org

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the ABC cancellation of “The Real O’Neals”:

Last month, I wrote a news release stating, “Disney/ABC won’t come right out and say it, so I will: The obituary for ‘The Real O’Neals’ has been written and will soon be announced.” Now it’s official—the show is dead.

If Disney/ABC had any integrity they would have axed the script once it was submitted. Our problem all along had less to do with the stupid content of the show than it did with whom it was based on—Dan Savage.

Savage is a vile anti-Catholic who is known for his sick sex columns and his obscene rants against priests. What he has said about Saint John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI is so foul that the New York Times would not allow me to describe what he said by inserting an asterisk in place of letters. Yes, his words were that filthy.

Disney/ABC would never base a show on the life of David Duke, but it had no problem offering a show based on Duke’s Catholic counterpart. That’s why we led a two-year fight against this show.

There is no doubt in my mind that they would have dropped this show after its first season had it not been for the perception that it was yielding to pressure. This only goes to show how depraved the officials are at Disney/ABC—image and ideology trumped money and decency.

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

Bill Donohue comments on the latest bombshell in the Msgr. William Lynn case:

The star witness in the Philadelphia D.A.’s ongoing witch-hunt against the Catholic Church has now been totally discredited.

The D.A.’s office had relied heavily on the incredulous claims of Danny Gallagher, a.k.a. “Billy Doe,” to send three priests and a Catholic school teacher to prison.

But now retired Detective Joseph Walsh—the prosecution’s own lead investigator into Gallagher’s lurid tales of being violently sexually abused—has filed a 12 page affidavit exposing Gallagher’s claims as a pack of lies. Walsh recounts—as he has done before—how prosecutors repeatedly blew off his warnings about Gallagher’s credibility, such was their zeal to nail these men.

Walsh wrote his affidavit on behalf of Bernard Shero, the former Catholic school teacher now serving 8-16 years in jail based on Gallagher’s claims. But the affidavit is also being used by lawyers for Msgr. Lynn, the Archdiocese of Philadelphia official convicted of endangering the welfare of a child (he was never accused of abusing anyone). Msgr. Lynn’s conviction has been overturned three times, but Philadelphia D.A. Seth Williams—who is on the verge of going to the slammer himself for bribery, extortion and fraud—continues to pursue the case against him.

It is time to end this travesty once and for all. Walsh’s affidavit has exposed not only the flagrant lies of the prosecution’s star witness, but also the depth of corruption in the Philadelphia judicial system.

No one has done a better job of exposing all this than reporter Ralph Cipriano. To read his detailed account, click here.

Bill Donohue comments on a bill affirming the purpose of faith-based organizations that passed the Texas House yesterday:

Kudos to Texas Rep. James Frank for securing the right of faith-based entities to carry out their mission without undue encroachment by the government. Under his legislation, which passed yesterday, these institutions can now proceed without fear of state pressure to compromise their doctrinal prerogatives.

Faith-based social service institutions exist to serve the welfare of those they represent. Catholics, Evangelicals, mainline Protestants, Jews, Mormons, Muslims, and others all have organizations that provide services to the needy and the dispossessed within their communities. They should be encouraged by the public sector in this effort, facilitating their success whenever possible.

It is astonishing how many “progressive” activists seem not to care about the fundamental right of Mormon adoptive agencies to place children in their care with fellow Mormons. That the right of Mormons to do so needs to be explained suggests that their critics are out of touch with reality, or that they harbor a prejudice in need of serious correction.

The Dallas News ran a headline yesterday, “Texas Adoption Agencies Could ban Jews, gays, Muslims under House bill.” Why didn’t it mention Catholics? Is that because Catholics have been assigned the role of victimizer?

As a Catholic, I would hope that my Evangelical brothers and sisters would not hesitate to discriminate against Catholics by seeking to place children in their care with Evangelical adoptive parents. Children are best served when they are justly paired with adoptive parents who share their demographic and belief orientations.

President Trump said this week that he supports Black Colleges. Only an idiot would accuse him of fostering bigotry by showing preferential treatment for blacks. And only an idiot would accuse faith-based institutions of fostering bigotry by showing preferential treatment to their own.

We commend the logic and reasoning of Jennifer Allmon of the Texas Catholic Conference, and the sincerity and erudition of Rep. Frank. We hope this Texas bill becomes law and serves as a model to all states.

Bill Donohue comments on the latest con-job against the Church:

An American man says that a half-century ago he was sexually abused by another adult man; the abused was an adult at the time. The incident took place in a foreign country, and now the man who says he was abused is suing the American company the abuser once worked for, even though the abuser was subsequently fired by the organization.

This sounds like a fairy tale, except it is true. It is true because those gunning for the Catholic Church will stop at nothing to discredit it.

The alleged offender is a former Catholic priest who supposedly abused an 18-year-old man in Canada in 1969. Now the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, where the priest was stationed, is being sued for $3 million in Ontario courts.

There are alleged sexual abuse victims in every part of the world, in every secular and religious institution, but there is no interest in hunting down the bad guys five decades later, unless, of course, the offender once worked for the Catholic Church.

Such ventures have nothing to do with justice—this is about vengeance and money.

Bill Donohue comments on reaction to Bill Maher’s incest joke about the president and his daughter:

We have been chronicling Bill Maher’s filthy assaults on Catholic priests, including Pope Francis and his predecessors, for years, so it came as no surprise that he would portray President Trump and his daughter Ivanka in an incestuous act. This is who the man is: He insults people he hates, and he does so by stooping to gutter-level humor, making a good living out of it.

Maher gets away with his filth because his audience is not offended by his obscenities. They would if he viciously assaulted Barack Obama or Caitlyn Jenner, but they have nothing to worry about—he never will.

This tells us more about Maher’s fan base than it does him. It should not matter who the object of a sexually sick joke is, but that it does is as revealing as it is troubling.

Contact: Keith Cocozza, Sr. VP Corporate Communications: Keith.Cocozza@timewarner.com