Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on another remark by Sen. Dianne Feinstein that has made the news:

When Sen. Dianne Feinstein made a patently anti-Catholic comment in 2017, saying to circuit-court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, “the dogma lives loudly within you,” I wrote to the senator expressing my concerns. More important, I mobilized thousands of Catholics to email Sen. Charles Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, about Feinstein’s bigoted remark. Now Feinstein is back in the news with a hot-mic quip about Barrett’s Catholicism.

Speaking about Barrett, Feinstein was caught saying, “She’s been pro-life for a long time. So, I suspect with her, it is deeply personal and comes with her religion.”

Feinstein is now being rapped for making another anti-Catholic remark. She should not be. What she said is not anti-Catholic. But I hasten to add that coming from someone who previously made an anti-Catholic comment about Barrett, Feinstein’s second Catholic moment tells us a lot about who she is.

Feinstein was correct to say Barrett is “pro-life,” which is an accurate way to characterize what is usually understood by those on the other side as “anti-choice.” And, yes, for practicing Catholics, such a conviction—which is also confirmed by science—being pro-life is “deeply personal.” But given what Feinstein previously said about Barrett’s Catholicity, it appears that she is positively awestruck by her sincerity.

Feinstein is not alone. Secularists abound in the media, the arts, the entertainment industry and education. At best, they look at people like Barrett in wonderment, almost as if they are from some other universe; at worst, they hate them. Feinstein falls into the former category.

It is somewhat surprising for Feinstein to be puzzled by a Catholic’s deeply personal faith. After all, she graduated from Convent of the Sacred Heart High School. However, she also attended a Jewish temple—her father was Jewish—and spent time in a Jewish day school. So perhaps she never found anchor in either religion; she is not known to be a practicing member of any faith.

Elites in all walks of life are acutely sensitive to stereotypes, expressing horror whenever generalizations are made about people of color, et al. Moreover, they are constantly urging us to meet people who are different from us so we can understand their point of view. The one exception to this maxim is people of faith, especially Christians. For us, they just stare. That’s if we’re lucky. Others seek to silence us.

Feinstein congratulated Barrett during the hearings for her “impressive” command of the facts. That was kind of her. Now if she could only sit down and spend some time really listening to people like Barrett—getting to know them the way she knows dogmatic secularists—that would make her a better person. Not only that, we would all benefit from that outcome.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the latest attack on Judge Amy Coney Barrett:

Judge Amy Coney Barrett has angered the left: they’ve tried desperately to destroy her, but they never laid a glove on her. Pundits and activists reviewed her scholarship, which is impressive by any measure, and found nothing to use against her. Similarly, they scoured her legal opinions, but found nothing that would disqualify her. What’s left? Her personal life.

They really wanted to find some dirt on Barrett, but they came up empty. Unlike some of the senators who grilled her, she’s clean. Sen. Mazie Hirono showed what she is made of when she asked her if she had ever been a sexual predator. It accomplished nothing, except to discredit Hirono. Coming off a tale of vicious lies told about Brett Kavanaugh, some on the left resorted to condemning Barrett for being a model mother.

If this sounds crazy, read the screed by Lyz Lenz in Glamour. In the matter of a few pages, she refers to “mother” or “motherhood” 55 times, almost always in the kind of snide way we have come to expect from those who see mothers as “breeders” (often out of envy). This is especially true of white mothers who embody the best attributes of motherhood.

Referring to Barrett’s status as a mother of seven children, Lenz contends that those who support her have “boiled her down to a single identity and everything she does or will do flows from that.” Wrong. Her supporters know she has multiple identities and multiple gifts. It is her foes, like Lenz, who treat her as a “bare foot in the kitchen” type of woman.

Lenz is a single mother, an LGBTQ proponent and a former evangelical. That pretty much says it all. It surely explains why she sees in Barrett someone who “remind[s] the public that a woman’s worth is primarily a measure of her reproductive capabilities.” No one thinks that way except those who are livid over the sight of a pro-life mother, with impeccable scholarly and characterological credentials, poised to ascend to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Like many young white women these days, Lenz is riddled with guilt. When they are not confessing their sin of whiteness in a racial sensitivity program, or engaging in street violence at a “peaceful” demonstration, they are lashing out at well-adjusted white women. For example, she takes a stab at Kellyanne Conway—out of the blue—simply because she is another pro-Trump, pro-life mother. Oh yes, she is also white. Strike three.

Like other alienated women who despise Barrett, Lenz is furious that the Trump nominee is supposedly benefiting from the trail blazed by Ruth Bader Ginsburg. They need to get over it. Ginsburg was a distinguished jurist. So is Barrett. It is childlike to think that whoever succeeds Ginsburg should be her clone. Moreover, Barrett owes more to Antonin Scalia, whose jurisprudential philosophy she shares, than Ginsburg.

What is really strange about this hit piece on Barrett is that it appears in Glamour. Not too long ago, this magazine entertained normal women waiting to get their hair done. Now it entertains women who hate white mothers. There is nothing normal about that.

Contact: glamourpublicity@condenast.com

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the way anti-religious activists are responding to Amy Coney Barrett:

American Atheists and Americans United for Separation of Church and State were both founded by anti-Catholics. Not surprisingly, they have now lined up against Amy Coney Barrett, the practicing Catholic whose religion has come under attack from many quarters. Both organizations have put forth arguments against her that are intellectually dishonest.

American Atheists has said the following about the Supreme Court nominee. “Judge Coney Barrett has not only written that the religious beliefs of judges prevent them from ruling fairly in all cases—saying that judges should ‘conform their own behavior to the Church’s standard’—but also that respecting past Supreme Court decisions ‘is not a hard-and-fast rule.'”

This is too cute by half. What the organization founded by Madalyn Murray O’Hair was referring to was a 1998 law review article co-written by Barrett and John Garvey (currently the president of Catholic University of America). They took up the dilemma of Catholic jurists having to decide cases where Catholic doctrine conflicted with judicial precedents. At issue was capital punishment. [When they wrote their article the Church was presumptively opposed to the death penalty; Pope Francis has recently closed the door on this subject.]

Barrett and Garvey made it clear that it was not appropriate for a Catholic judge to repair to Church teachings when making a decision. “Judges cannot—nor should they try—to align our legal system with the Church’s moral teaching whenever the two diverge.” In other words, they were arguing the very opposite of what American Atheists was implying about them: It is wrong, they made it clear, for a Catholic judge to use the Catholic Catechism as a template when making judicial rulings.

The next sentence by Barrett and Garvey shows how American Atheists took what they said out of context. “They should, however, conform their own behavior to the Church’s standard.” Thus did they draw a clear line between their duties as a judge and their duties as a Catholic. It can also be said that those on the left clearly do not believe that past high court decisions should be respected as a “hard-and-fast rule.” If they did, they would not have sought to reject previous court rulings on homosexuality and marriage.

Americans United, which was founded after World War II by anti-Catholic mainline Protestants, has on its website an article posted on September 26 that sounds eminently reasonable. “The Problem With Amy Coney Barrett Is Her Record, Not Her Religion.” If only they really believed this to be true.

On October 12, Americans United tweeted that while the Constitution forbids a religious test, it also “prohibits lawmaking based on a narrow minority’s religious beliefs.” This is, of course, accurate, but by advancing this line of thought in the context of considering Barrett’s nomination, they are raising a red flag: Beware of Barrett—she is going to decide judicial cases based on the teachings of the Catholic Church. Why else would they have issued this tweet?

The religion bashers have it in their claw. Knowing that overt anti-Catholic commentary is not going to fly this time around, they have decided to low-ball their animus. But the bottom line is the same. They have just repackaged their bigotry to make it appear less inflammatory. Democratic senators are likely to do the same.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on Joe Biden’s outreach to religious leaders:

It is being reported that the Biden campaign is bragging about the support the Democratic presidential candidate is getting from 1,600 faith leaders. They shouldn’t. Vote Common Good is a motley crew of left-wing activists who are more a liability than an asset to the Biden campaign.

For example, there is an embarrassing letter to pastors, clergy and faith leaders featured on the website of Vote Common Good that is anything but the kind of statement we would expect from religious leaders. It is a vicious ad hominem attack on the president.

Instead of praising Biden or criticizing President Trump’s policies, the letter speaks with derision about Trump’s supporters and descends into an assault on his alleged “amorality.” It also encourages religious leaders to play the race card by using the pulpit to hammer the “white Christians” who voted for Trump in 2016.

The executive director of Vote Common Good is Doug Pagitt, a left-wing Christian who has worked closely with Jim Wallis, the former Marxist who founded Sojourners. In August, this mainline Protestant publication was forced to pull an article effectively calling U.S. bishops racists.

Under Pagitt, his organization has given much profile to the subject of race. It claims to be anti-racist and even sponsors something called the “Racism Allyship Certification Program.” But no one takes them seriously, not when they learn that its members rallied outside the White House at Black Lives Matter Plaza (named after the racist group) before joining with Al Sharpton. Sharpton is one of the most polarizing race-baiting preachers in the nation.

Vote Common Good has won the support of two Catholic notables. Sister Simone Campbell of “Nuns on the Bus” fame and Patrick Carolan, another Catholic dissident. Both of them vigorously disagree with the Catholic Church’s teaching on abortion. They implore us to keep it legal.

If this isn’t enough to discredit Vote Common Good, learning who funds it finishes the job. Yup, they get their underwriting from George Soros, the self-hating Jewish billionaire who funds anti-Catholic organizations. And yes, Soros also greases Sojourners.

Biden is in deep trouble with the faithful and this gambit doesn’t help. He would have been better advised not to seek the endorsement of any religious leaders if this is the best he could do. Meanwhile, most people of faith voted for Trump last time, and they are likely to do so again. Joe will have to depend on mobilizing the atheists.

Contact Doug Pagitt: doug@dougpagitt.com

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the latest shutdown in New York City:

New York State Gov. Andrew Cuomo and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio may not get along, but they have one thing in common: an insatiable appetite for power. They love it when they can control people. But they hit a brick wall with Orthodox Jews.

The Catholic League understands the need for reasonable protocols to combat Covid-19, but we object to directives that are discriminatory in application, and this is especially true when religious institutions are subjected to a more burdensome standard than non-religious ones. This is why we support the objections raised by the Orthodox Jewish community in the New York City area. We only wish Catholics would be as aggressive in pushing back against edicts that are patently unjust.

On October 7, Cuomo ordered the shutdown of some neighborhoods, many in Brooklyn and Queens, because of a spike in coronavirus cases. While the target of his directive is the Orthodox Jewish community, he did not hold back in penalizing Catholic churches and schools, even though neither is exhibiting a health problem.

De Blasio issued a new directive that went into effect October 8. Those who do not wear a mask will be fined up to $1,000, and mass gatherings will be subject to fines up to $15,000. His order is hypocritical, discriminatory and wholly indefensible.

Why are so many Orthodox Jews mad? For the same reason why New Yorkers who are not part of their community are mad. Both the governor and the mayor have allowed, and indeed justified, mass gatherings in the form of protests. And now they want us to respect what they say?

Why are non-violent mass gatherings at synagogues and churches subject to shutdowns when violent mobs can roam the streets with impunity? As one Jewish reporter said to New York City’s health commissioner, Dr. Dave Chokshi, “What justification can we tell readers—why do they have to be careful when the mayor carves out exceptions based on his own personal politics?”

The reaction of Borough Park Community Board leader Barry Spitzer was similar. “People in the community have lost a lot of trust in the government, because people were told they can’t pray but thousands of people can gather in the streets to protest, or because rules kept changing from minute to minute without rhyme or reason.” Another Jewish leader opined, “They had no issue with the demonstrations, with the protests with thousands of people in the streets.”

When the mob was taking over bridges, burning police cars, and breaking into stores all over New York, de Blasio never tried to stop them. When asked in June why people cannot go to church or synagogue because of fear of Covid-19 infections, but they can riot in the streets, de Blasio said, “We’re in the middle of a national crisis, a deep-seated crisis. There is no comparison.” He was referring to what he said was “400 years of American racism.”

In other words, if de Blasio agrees with the purpose of a protest—no matter how violent—Covid-19 restrictions can be thrown to the wind. But religious funerals cannot be held.

Now de Blasio has outdone himself. On October 7, he proved once again what a rank hypocrite he is. “There’s a place for peaceful protests,” he said, “but the NYPD will not tolerate people doing harm to others. There will be no tolerance for assaults, for damage to property, for setting fires.”

But when it came to Antifa and Black Lives Matter, de Blasio not only told the cops to tolerate their violence, he told them to stand down and do nothing. He allowed them to harm others, assault others, damage property and set fires. They did it night after night. He had plenty of tolerance for that.

When the governor of New York tells rock stars scheduled to perform at the MTV Video Awards in New York City that they don’t have to abide by his order to quarantine for 14 days, and when the mayor of the City of New York treats people of faith as the enemy—while supporting rioters—it is no surprise that New Yorkers have turned cynical.

De Blasio and Cuomo have shot whatever moral authority they once had. No one should pay them any heed.

Contact Emma Wolfe, de Blasio’s chief of staff: EWolfe@cityhall.nyc.gov

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on remarks made during the vice presidential debate:

Vice President Mike Pence was right to nail the way Democrats have treated Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett. He was also right to go after Senator Kamala Harris for the way she has treated Catholic nominees for a federal court post.

Pence was pointed in his criticism. Harris, by contrast, was evasive. “Joe Biden and I are both people of faith, and it’s insulting to suggest that we would knock anyone for their faith….”

The issue is not whether Biden and Harris are “people of faith.” They may be. The issue is whether they tolerate, or contribute to, anti-Catholicism. Being a person of faith does not automatically exonerate someone from charges of bigotry, and this is true even in cases when the target of the vitriol is someone of the same religion.

Pence brought up the anti-Catholic attacks on Barrett when she was being considered for a seat on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals three years ago. Senator Dianne Feinstein made an expressly anti-Catholic remark, saying to Barrett, “the dogma lives loudly within you.” Senator Dick Durbin was more coy, but just as obnoxious, when he implied that there was no room for “orthodox” Catholics on the high court.

Harris ducked a chance to address these remarks. She had no choice—they were indefensible.

Harris also dodged her own contribution to anti-Catholicism. In 2018, she badgered federal court judge nominee Brian Buescher, indicting him for belonging to the Knights of Columbus. Had he belonged to Antifa (which Biden says is simply an “idea”), he may have cleared the bar.

Harris wanted to know whether Buescher was aware that the Knights, a Catholic organization, accepts Catholic teachings on abortion and marriage. The obvious implication was that it is not acceptable for a practicing Catholic to sit on a federal court. She also asked, “Have you ever, in any way, assisted with or contributed to advocacy against women’s reproductive rights?” In other words, only pro-abortion nominees to the federal bench need apply.

Biden’s personal religious beliefs do not excuse him from failing to condemn any of these anti-Catholic remarks. To make matters worse, he just recently accepted the support of Humanists for Biden, an off-shoot of Secular Democrats of America. The latter is on record raising red flags about Catholic hospitals, saying we have too many of them. What’s wrong with Catholic hospitals? They are places where “care can be dictated by religious doctrine.”

If elected, will Biden act on this alleged problem by denying federal funds to Catholic hospitals? His organized atheist supporters have declared war on religious exemptions, so this is hardly a stretch. Why hasn’t this professed Catholic condemned any of this? And if he is unaware of this, which is also not a stretch, it calls into question his readiness to assume office.

Biden not only accepts the support of anti-Catholics, he has on his payroll a Catholic-bashing bigot, Nikitha Rai; she is his Deputy Data Director. Rai has publicly said that because Barrett holds traditional moral views on marriage and sexuality, this makes her “intolerant,” and therefore not suitable to be on the Supreme Court. Once again, no Catholics who embrace Catholic teachings on these issues need apply. Perversely, that would not exclude Catholics like Biden.

Kamala Harris has made anti-Catholic remarks, and Joe Biden welcomes anti-Catholic bigots on board. Harris’ refusal to go toe-to-toe with Pence on this issue proves how incontestable the evidence is.

Contact Sabrina Singh, Harris’ press secretary: ssingh@joebiden.com

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on People of Praise:

With the impending battle over Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to the Supreme Court, many reporters are focusing on a charismatic Christian organization, People of Praise, to which Barrett reportedly belongs.

Much of the coverage has been negative. The media and left-wing activists have tried to present this group as a fringe cult. These claims are bogus. People of Praise is comprised of many well-educated Christians. Indeed, they are a vibrant community that makes the Church stronger. Consider what those who know the organization have said about it.

• Sean Connelly, communications director for People of Praise, said, “[C]harges of the mistreatment of women, insularity, lack of privacy and shunning are contradictory to our beliefs and our practices as a community.”
• Connelly also said, “Contrary to what has been alleged, women take on a variety of critical leadership roles within People of Praise, including serving as heads of several of our schools and directing ministries within our community.”
• Joannah Clark, who grew up in People of Praise and is now the head of the Trinity Academy in Portland, Oregon says, “This role of the husband as the head of the family is not a position of power or domination…. It’s a position of care and service and responsibility. Men are looking out for the good and well-being of their families.”
• Clark also said, “At any point, a community member can decide to leave and is free to do so.”
• Clark added, “There’s a high value on personal freedom,” and “I’ve never been asked to do anything against my own free will. I have never been dominated or controlled by a man.”
• Clark further added, “I consider myself a strong, well-educated, happy, intelligent, free, independent woman.” “We are normal people – there’s women who are nurses, doctors, teachers, scientists, stay-at-home moms… We are in Christian community because we take our faith seriously. We are not weird and mysterious… And we are not controlled by men.”
• The late Cardinal Francis George wrote, “In my acquaintance with the People of Praise, I have found men and women dedicated to God and eager to seek and do His divine will. They are shaped by love of Holy Scripture, prayer and community; and the Church’s mission is richer for their presence.”
• Bishop Peter Smith, an auxiliary bishop of the Diocese of Portland, Oregon and member of People of Praise, said, “We’re a lay movement in the Church…. We continue to try and live out life and our calling as Catholics, as baptized Christians, in this particular way, as other people do in other callings or ways that God may lead them into the Church.”
• Nathan W. O’Halloran, a Jesuit who grew up in a charismatic Catholic group, writes in America Magazine that “the charismatic movement…has been an answer to the prayer and the desire of many Catholics to live a more animated and evangelistic Christian life.”
• Dan Philpott, a Notre Dame political science professor whose children attend Trinity School, run by People of Praise, said, “In my view, the phrases ‘right’ and ‘conservative’ aren’t really helpful. Most Catholic lay organizations are there to help people live faithful Christian lives. It’s hard to say that the causes it supports are really ‘left’ or ‘right.’ Its mission is really not political.”
• Nicolas Rowan of the Washington Examiner, observes that “The group has enjoyed friendly relations with Pope Francis, contrary to many politically conservative Catholics.”
• In the Associated Press, current members described People of Praise as, “a Christian fellowship, focused on building community. One member described it as a ‘family of families,’ who commit themselves to each other in mutual support to live together ‘through thick and thin.'”
• The AP also notes that “People of Praise has a strong commitment to intellectualism, evidenced in part by the schools they have established, which have a reputation for intellectual rigor.”
• The AP also reports that “Barrett’s parents are both registered Democrats, according to Louisiana voter registration records.”
• In a Politico article, Adam Wren says, “What’s difficult to understand outside of South Bend, however, is just how deeply integrated this group is into the local community.” (Anyone who has studied cults knows that cults try to cut their members off from the rest of society.)
• Peggy Noonan writes in the Wall Street Journal, “O. Carter Snead, a Notre Dame law professor and director of the de Nicola Center for Ethics and Culture, notes, Amy Barrett – herself a law professor as well as a judge – appears to be failing at being submissive and a total disaster at being subjugated.”

If any senator wants to vote against Barrett, he or she will have to come up with something more credible than trying to paint People of Praise as some kind of nutty organization.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s latest edict:

Orthodox Jewish neighborhoods in New York are witnessing a spike in coronavirus infections, and the response by New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo is to shut down all churches, synagogues and schools—private, religious, and public—in an attempt to quell the spread of the disease. The authoritarian language he invoked to justify this extraordinary measure was chilling.

“We know religious institutions have been a problem,” he said. He then took direct aim at synagogues. “If you’re not willing to live with these rules [banning mass gatherings], then I’m going to close the synagogues.” He also said he would deploy the police to enforce his edict. If there are too many people entering a house of worship, he said, “the state police officer is down the block, and he will come help you.”

There are two major problems with Cuomo’s order: his authority to execute it is in serious doubt and his decision to blanket Catholic churches and schools—where there are no problems—is discriminatory.

Last June, after violent mobs went on a rampage attacking innocent people, destroying property, looting, and tying up traffic in an illegal demonstration, neither New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio nor Gov. Cuomo did anything to stop it. The police were told to stand down and both men expressed sympathy with the thugs. Obviously, social distancing was summarily ignored.

Their duplicity did not go unnoticed. On June 26, U.S. District Judge Gary Sharpe issued a preliminary injunction saying de Blasio and Cuomo exceeded their authority. By allowing the protests, he said, they were “encouraging what they knew was a flagrant disregard of the outdoor limits and social distancing rules.” In doing so, they “sent a clear message that mass protests are deserving of preferential treatment.” Neither de Blasio nor Cuomo challenged the judge’s ruling.

Cuomo showed his contempt for Catholic churches and schools when he subjected them to his order. There is no spike in coronavirus in any Catholic church or school in the Archdiocese of New York or the Diocese of Brooklyn. Why is he penalizing Catholic institutions, which are not a problem, but is allowing commercial establishments in these same neighborhoods to conduct business as usual?

The New York State Catholic Conference, speaking for the two dioceses, is right to condemn Cuomo’s “broad-brush approach.” Catholic schools in New York, which have spent millions to ensure a safe environment, “have rightly been held up as a model of safety,” earning considerable media applause. Why, then, are Catholic institutions being burdened because of the “inferior protocols at non-Catholic schools”? This is “a profound injustice” to the Catholic community.

Why is Cuomo doing this? Here’s my perspective.

On March 25, Cuomo ordered still recovering coronavirus patients to be sent to nursing homes. It led to over 4,300 deaths (before he rescinded his directive). Dr. Daniel Choi of Hofstra University’s School of Medicine branded his decision “a death sentence.”

When this happened in March, I told our staff that Cuomo, having been burned in the press for his “death sentence,” would seek to compensate for his initial incompetence by shutting down New York indefinitely. He could not risk screwing up New York on the backend of the pandemic after screwing it up at the beginning.

The man is a wreck. His politicization of Covid-19 is a national disgrace. Now Catholics are being asked to pay the price for his delinquency.

Contact Cuomo’s press office: Press.Office@exec.ny.gov

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on efforts by the Trump and Biden campaigns to court the Catholic vote:

The Catholic vote is the religious swing vote and both the Trump and Biden camps know it. This explains their outreach via Catholics for Trump and Catholics for Biden.

More important than these campaign efforts is how the two candidates approach issues that are central to Catholicism. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has declared abortion to be the “preeminent” issue for Catholics. On this score, Trump’s pro-life position is consistent with the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Biden, who was once pro-life, is now a champion of abortion-on-demand through term, and is therefore wildly out-of-step with his religion’s position.

Trump and the Catholic Church agree that marriage should be the preserve of one man and one woman. Biden rejects the Church’s teaching and supports gay marriages. School choice is favored by the Catholic Church, and Trump is a rabid supporter of it. Biden is opposed to all school choice initiatives.

Religious liberty has emerged as one of the most important issues of our day, affecting domestic and foreign policy alike. The Catholic League has tallied nearly 50 instances where Trump has embraced or advanced religious liberty in the past three-and-a-half years.

We examined Biden’s record over 47 years of public service and could find almost no instances of his support for religious liberty. He did vote for the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in 1993, but his recent endorsement of the “Equality Act” and “Do No Harm” effectively vitiates his position: both would seriously undercut, if not neuter altogether, RFRA. Most glaringly, Biden’s support for the Health and Human Services mandate that would force the Little Sisters of the Poor to pay for abortion-inducing drugs in their healthcare plan has led him to be denounced by Catholic leaders, lay and clergy alike.

The official Party Platforms offer a revealing look at the way the Trump and Biden campaigns address religious liberty. There are nine references to religious liberty in the Republican Party Platform, all of which are positive statements. The Democratic Party Platform cites religious liberty six times, four times positively and two times negatively.

Both Trump and Biden have been praised and criticized by some bishops. This matters less to Trump as he is not Catholic. But it matters greatly to Biden.

Cardinal Raymond Burke has said that Biden should not be given Holy Communion because of his pro-abortion record. Some priests have, in fact, denied him the Eucharist, or have warned him not to come to Communion, because of his stance.

Bishop Richard Stika called out Biden over the summer. “Don’t understand how Mr. Biden can claim to be a good and faithful Catholic as he denies so much of Church teaching especially on the absolute child abuse and human rights violations of the most innocent, the not yet born.” Bishop Thomas Tobin took an oblique shot at Biden when he observed that there was no Catholic on the Democratic ticket this time.

Some bishops have made more veiled-like comments. Bishop Joseph Strickland has spoken out strongly about the election and how the “Sanctity of Life, true marriage between a man & a woman, supporting the nuclear family and sexual morality based on biblical truth” must be paramount. Bishop Thomas Daly has advised those who “obstinately persevere in their public support for abortion, should not receive Communion without first being reconciled to Christ and the Church.”

What got Biden into deep trouble with the bishops was his decision not only to support gay marriage, but his willingness to officiate at a wedding between two men. Three leaders of the bishops’ conference, Archbishop Joseph Kurtz, Bishop Richard Malone, and Archbishop Thomas Wenski issued a statement that was obviously aimed at Biden. They criticized him for being “a counter witness, instead of a faithful one founded in the truth.”

The most recent bishop to call into question Biden’s standing in the Catholic Church—without mentioning him specifically—is Archbishop Samuel Aquila. “It is not possible to be a Catholic in good standing and support abortion or assisted suicide, to promote unnatural sexuality, or to seek to push people of faith out of the public square.”

Finally, there is the issue of anti-Catholicism. The Trump administration has never been tagged with anti-Catholicism, but the Biden campaign certainly has. In fact, his running mate, Kamala Harris, made a stunning contribution to this ancient strain of bigotry when she badgered a man being considered for a seat on a federal district court in Nebraska simply because he belonged to the Knights of Columbus.

Now we have Humanists for Biden, an off-shoot of Secular Democrats of America, also of recent vintage. The parent group is off to a fast start bashing Catholics. Biden also has in his employ Nikitha Rai, a data expert who believes that Catholics like Amy Coney Barrett, who espouse traditional moral values, should not be allowed to serve on the Supreme Court.

It is evident that Biden’s policies on key issues are problematic from a Catholic perspective. Add to this his strained relationship with many priests and bishops, as well as the support he receives from anti-Catholics, and the difference between Trump and him is considerable.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on Kamala Harris’ appeal to religious voters:

The Democrats, as every survey shows, is the party of secularists, some of whom are Christian bashers. Tagged with being anything but religion-friendly, Democrats have resorted to “God talk” to woo voters. The latest to do so is Kamala Harris.

After the presidential debate, Harris was interviewed by Jake Tapper of CNN. After Tapper lied about President Trump—saying he refused to   denounce white supremacists (when Chris Wallace asked Trump if he was prepared to condemn them, Trump answered, “Sure, I’m prepared to do it”)—Harris was asked to share her thoughts. “The president of the United States in the year of our Lord, 2020, refuses to condemn white supremacists.” (All references to this expression are my italics.)

Forget that Harris also misrepresented what Trump said (the president  told Wallace “I’m willing to do anything—I want to see peace”), the issue for the Catholic League is her “God talk.” Is there anything wrong with such language? Not if it is sincere.

There is no record of Harris ever using such language before she became a senator and a presidential hopeful a few years ago. For example, in her seven years as District Attorney in San Francisco (2004-2011), and her six years as Attorney General of California (2011-2017), there is not a single media report of her saying in the year of our Lord when talking to reporters.

The first time she used that line was in June 2017. Harris was asked about the speculation surrounding her run for the White House. “Listen, 2020 is in how many years? We are in the year of our Lord 2017.”

Her next invocation of this line was reported by the New York Times on September 10, 2019. When asked to comment on criminal reform, she said, “But hey, if you’ve got, in the year of our Lord 2019, all the major candidates running for president of the United States” pushing for these reforms, that is a good thing.

On November 20, 2019, Harris appeared on MSNBC to discuss equal pay for women. “We passed the Equal Pay Act in 1963, but fast forward to the year of our Lord 2019….” On June 8, 2020, at a news conference on crime, Harris said “just last week in the year of our Lord 2020….”

How can we be sure that this is a game and not a sincere expression of her religiosity? On the 4th of July 2019, when the issue of racial integration came up, Harris was criticized by former Obama operative David Axelrod for changing her position. Here is what Axelrod was told. “The debate [Democratic primary debate] was about opposing busing in 1970. It is now 40 years later in the year of our Lord 2019.”

It was not Harris who said that. It was her communications director, Lily Adams. She is lily white, the granddaughter of Texas Democrat Ann Richards. This certainly suggests that in the year of our Lord is a line right out of the Harris campaign’s playbook.

Harris’ father is Christian and her mother is Hindu. Her husband is Jewish. When they got married only Harris’ mother’s religion was acknowledged: her husband wore a floral garland around his neck honoring her Hindu upbringing.

More important are Harris’ positions on religious liberty. She opposed the Hobby Lobby high court ruling affirming the religious liberty of Christian-owned businessmen not to pay for birth control in their healthcare plans. She backed the Health and Human Services mandate that sought to force the Little Sisters of the Poor to pay for abortion-inducing drugs in their healthcare plan. She backs legislation that would weaken the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Harris is no friend of religious liberty. Her recent decision to exclaim in the year of our Lord, which has been conveniently picked up by her staff, is a ploy designed to appeal to unassuming Christian voters impressed by “God talk.” As the old adage says, actions speak louder than words, and on this score, Harris fails to convince.